Lamarr Rondell Coleman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 8, 2018
• Docket: 49A05-1706-CR-1202
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jan 08 2018, 10:11 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Darren Bedwell Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Michael Gene Worden Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Lamarr Rondell Coleman, January 8, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A05-1706-CR-1202 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Mark D. Stoner, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge The Honorable Jeffrey Marchal, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G06-1608-F3-30309

Altice, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1706-CR-1202 | January 8, 2018 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary

[1] Lamarr Coleman appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for

Level 3 felony robbery. On appeal, Coleman argues that his sentence is

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On the evening of August 2, 2016, Coleman and his friend, Paul Shipp, robbed

an Indianapolis liquor store. While Shipp beat the store clerk with his fists and

a wooden board, Coleman put money from the cash register and two bottles of

whiskey into a bag. Police arrived on the scene while the robbery was still in

progress, and Coleman and Shipp were both taken into custody.

[4] As a result of these events, the State charged Coleman with Level 3 felony

robbery. Following a jury trial, Coleman was found guilty as charged. The

trial court sentenced Coleman to the nine-year advisory sentence, with three

years executed on community corrections and the remaining six years

suspended to probation. Coleman now appeals.

Discussion & Decision

[5] Coleman argues that his sentence is inappropriately harsh. Article 7, section 4

of the Indiana Constitution grants our Supreme Court the power to review and

revise criminal sentences. See Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014),

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1706-CR-1202 | January 8, 2018 Page 2 of 5 cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 978 (2015). Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7, the

Supreme Court authorized this court to perform the same task. Cardwell v. State,

895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). Per App. R. 7(B), we may revise a sentence

“if after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds that the

sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character

of the offender.” Inman v. State, 4 N.E.3d 190, 203 (Ind. 2014) (quoting App. R.

7). “Sentencing review under Appellate Rule 7(B) is very deferential to the trial

court.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). “Such deference

should prevail unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive

light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and

lack of brutality) and the defendant’s character (such as substantial virtuous

traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d

111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[6] The determination of whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate “turns on

our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the

damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given

case.” Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134, 1145 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Cardwell, 895

N.E.2d at 1224). Moreover, “[t]he principal role of such review is to attempt to

leaven the outliers.” Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. 2013). It is

not our goal in this endeavor to achieve the perceived “correct” sentence in

each case. Knapp, 9 N.E.3d at 1292. Accordingly, “the question under

Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1706-CR-1202 | January 8, 2018 Page 3 of 5 the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” King v. State,

894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (emphasis in original).

[7] In order to assess the appropriateness of a sentence, we first look to the

statutory range established for the classification of the relevant offense.

Coleman was convicted of a Level 3 felony, the sentencing range for which is

three to sixteen years, with an advisory sentence of nine years. Ind. Code § 35-

50-2-5. Because the advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has

chosen as appropriate for the crime committed, a defendant who has received

the advisory sentence bears a particularly heavy burden in persuading us that

his sentence is inappropriate. Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1089 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2011), trans. denied. In this case, Coleman not only received the advisory

sentence of nine years, but three years were ordered to be served on community

corrections and the remaining six years were suspended to probation.

[8] With respect to the nature of the offense, Coleman argues that he did not

personally inflict any of the injuries on the store clerk and that the crime was

not premeditated. With respect to his character, Coleman notes that he is

disabled and collects SSI and food stamps, that he has only a ninth grade

education and has difficulty reading and writing, and that he began drinking at

a young age and had been drinking on the day of the offense. It is unclear to us

how these observations reflect positively on his character. In any event, we

note that Coleman received a very lenient sentence, particularly in light of his

criminal history, which spans nearly thirty years and includes four felonies,

numerous misdemeanors, and two probation violations. Coleman’s nine-year

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1706-CR-1202 | January 8, 2018 Page 4 of 5 sentence, with three years executed on community corrections and six years

suspended to probation, is not inappropriate.1

[9] Judgment affirmed.

[10] May, J. and Vaidik, C.J., concur.

1 Although the State remarks that Coleman’s sentence is inappropriate in that it is too lenient, it does not seek an upward revision of the sentence. See Akard v. State, 937 N.E.2d 811, 814 (Ind. 2010) (declining to increase a sentence where the State did not request it).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1706-CR-1202 | January 8, 2018 Page 5 of 5