Matthew R. Frazier v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 24, 2018
• Docket: 70A04-1710-CR-2380
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Jan 24 2018, 7:21 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as CLERK Indiana Supreme Court precedent or cited before any court except for the Court of Appeals and Tax Court purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Brooklyn, Indiana Christina D. Pace Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Matthew R. Frazier, January 24, 2018

Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 70A04-1710-CR-2380

v. Appeal from the Rush Superior Court State of Indiana, The Hon. Brian D. Hill, Judge Trial Court Cause No. Appellee-Plaintiff. 70D01-1604-F4-302

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A04-1710-CR-2380 | January 24, 2018 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] In early 2016, Appellant-Defendant Matthew Frazier sold methamphetamine to

a confidential informant and ultimately pled guilty to Level 4 felony dealing in

methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced Frazier to an advisory term of six

years of incarceration, with two suspended to probation. Frazier contends that

his sentence is inappropriately harsh. Because we disagree, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On January 9, 2016, Frazier sold 1.3 grams of methamphetamine to a

confidential informant for $130.00 in Rush County. On April 28, 2016, the

State charged Frazier with Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 6

felony methamphetamine possession, and Level 6 felony dealing in a controlled

substance. On September 11, 2017, Frazier pled guilty to Level 4 felony dealing

in methamphetamine, and the trial court sentenced him to six years of

incarceration, with two suspended to probation.

Discussion and Decision [3] Frazier contends that his sentence is inappropriately harsh. We “may revise a

sentence authorized by statute 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.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B).

“Although appellate review of sentences must give due consideration to the trial

court’s sentence because of the special expertise of the trial bench in making

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A04-1710-CR-2380 | January 24, 2018 Page 2 of 4 sentencing decisions, Appellate Rule 7(B) is an authorization to revise sentences

when certain broad conditions are satisfied.” Shouse v. State, 849 N.E.2d 650,

660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied (citations and quotation marks omitted).

“[W]hether we regard a sentence as appropriate at the end of the day 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.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). In addition to the

“due consideration” we are required to give to the trial court’s sentencing

decision, “we understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court

brings to its sentencing decisions.” Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873

(Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The trial court sentenced Frazier to six years of

incarceration for Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine, with two

suspended to probation. Six years is the advisory sentence for a Level 4 felony.

See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5.

[4] The nature of the offense is that Frazier sold 1.3 grams of methamphetamine to

a confidential informant. While this offense does not seem to be particularly

heinous in terms of drug deals, Frazier’s six-year, advisory sentence already

reflects that, even before one considers the two years suspended to probation.

While the nature of Frazier’s offense might not support the imposition of an

enhanced sentence, it does not follow that it must support a reduced sentence.

[5] As for Frazier’s character, his lengthy criminal history does not speak well of

him. Frazier, who was thirty-two years old at the time of sentencing, has had

eight prior misdemeanor convictions, including public intoxication, two

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A04-1710-CR-2380 | January 24, 2018 Page 3 of 4 convictions for possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, and

possession of methamphetamine. Frazier also has five prior felony convictions,

including theft, maintaining a common nuisance, and neglect of a dependent.

The offense to which Frazier pled guilty is similar to most of the offenses for

which he has already been convicted, albeit more serious: Frazier has

progressed from mere possession of illegal drugs to dealing them. Despite

Frazier’s many criminal convictions, he has not chosen to reform himself, and

in fact, the severity of his crimes seems to be increasing. Frazier has failed to

establish that his six-year, advisory sentence (with two years suspended to

probation) is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character.

[6] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A04-1710-CR-2380 | January 24, 2018 Page 4 of 4