Lisa A. Medsker v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 29, 2016
• Docket: 73A04-1506-CR-668
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jan 29 2016, 9:30 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Amanda O. Blackketter Gregory F. Zoeller Blackketter Law, Inc. Attorney General of Indiana Shelbyville, Indiana Paula J. Beller Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Lisa A. Medsker, January 29, 2016 Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Cause No. 73A04-1506-CR-668 v. Appeal from the Shelby Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable David N. Riggins, Appellee-Petitioner. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 73D02-1504-F6-112

Barnes, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A04-1506-CR-668 | January 29, 2016 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] Lisa Medsker appeals her two-year sentence for Class A misdemeanor theft and

two counts of Level 6 felony theft. We affirm.

Issue [2] Medsker raises one issue, which we restate as whether her sentence is

inappropriate.

Facts [3] In 2015, Medsker, her husband, and her three children were in the process of

moving and were living with Medsker’s in-laws in Shelby County. On three

separate occasions, while her in-laws were on vacation, Medsker took several

items belonging to her in-laws, including tools, a camera, and a laptop, and

pawned them in Indianapolis. Medsker then reported to police that her in-laws’

home had been burglarized. Medsker later admitted to stealing those items,

which were recovered from the pawnshop and returned to Medsker’s in-laws.

[4] The State charged Medsker with one count of Class A misdemeanor theft

related to the tools and two counts of Level 6 felony theft based on the value of

the camera and laptop. Medsker pled guilty and, after considering her criminal

history and position of trust, the trial court sentenced Medsker to eighty-one

days on the misdemeanor charge and to two years on each of the felony

charges. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A04-1506-CR-668 | January 29, 2016 Page 2 of 5 ordered Medsker to serve 545 days executed, and suspended the remaining 185

days to probation. Medsker now appeals.

Analysis [5] Medsker argues that her two-year sentence is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate

Rule 7(B) permits us to revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due

consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find that the sentence is

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and the character of the

offender. Although Appellate Rule 7(B) does not require us to be “extremely”

deferential to a trial court’s sentencing decision, we still must give due

consideration to that decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2007). We also understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial

court brings to its sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a defendant bears

the burden of persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is

inappropriate.” Id.

[6] The principal role of Appellate Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to

leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and

those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a

perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225

(Ind. 2008). We “should focus on the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather

than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the

sentence on any individual count.” Id. Whether a sentence is inappropriate

ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crimes,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A04-1506-CR-668 | January 29, 2016 Page 3 of 5 the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a

given case. Id. at 1224. When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence

under Appellate Rule 7(B), we may consider all aspects of the penal

consequences imposed by the trial court in sentencing the defendant, including

whether a portion of the sentence was suspended. Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d

1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010).

[7] As an initial matter, we note that the trial court suspended approximately six

months of Medsker’s two-year sentence to probation, requiring her to serve

only 545 days executed for one misdemeanor and two felony convictions.

[8] Regarding the nature of the offense, Medsker, on multiple occasions, stole items

from her in-laws and pawned them to get money to support her heroin habit.

She did so after her in-laws had opened their home to Medsker and her family

while they were in the process of moving. Medsker then reported a burglary to

police, presumably in an attempt to cover up her criminal activity.

[9] Regarding her character, Medsker was remorseful during the sentencing hearing

and pled guilty to the charges. Nevertheless, Medsker’s criminal history

includes a felony conviction for burglary and a conviction for check deception.

Clearly, Medsker has little regard for other people’s property. Although

Medsker explained that she committed the crimes to support her heroin

addiction, which she developed after having been prescribed pain pills, this does

not positively reflect on her character in that she admitted to using heroin for

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A04-1506-CR-668 | January 29, 2016 Page 4 of 5 eighteen months. Neither the nature of the offense nor Medsker’s character

warrants a reduction of her sentence.

Conclusion [10] Medsker’s sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and

the character of the offender. We affirm.

[11] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A04-1506-CR-668 | January 29, 2016 Page 5 of 5