Matthew Streit v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 29, 2019
• Docket: 19A-CR-774
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 29 2019, 9:07 am court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK Indiana Supreme Court estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Christopher L. Clerc Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Columbus, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Benjamin J. Shoptaw Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Matthew Streit, July 29, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-774 v. Appeal from the Bartholomew Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Kelly S. Benjamin, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 03C01-1810-F6-5790

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-774| July 29, 2019 Page 1 of 3 Case Summary [1] In January of 2019, Matthew Streit agreed to plead guilty to Level 6 felony

theft in cause number 03C01-1810-F6-5790 (“Cause No. 5790”). In exchange,

the State agreed to dismiss all remaining counts in Cause No. 5790 and in cause

number 03C01-1809-F6-5051 (“Cause No. 5051”). The trial court accepted the

plea agreement and sentenced Streit to 912 days of incarceration. Streit

contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to find his guilty

plea to be a mitigating factor. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On September 12, 2018, the State charged Streit with Level 6 felony residential

entry and Level 6 felony invasion of privacy in Cause No. 5051. On October

16, 2018, the State charged Streit with two counts of Level 6 felony theft in

Cause No. 5790. On January 28, 2019, pursuant to a plea agreement, Streit

agreed to plead guilty to Level 6 felony theft in Cause No. 5790. In exchange

for his plea, the State agreed to dismiss all remaining counts in Cause Nos. 5051

and 5790 and refrain from filing any additional charges or enhancements. On

March 7, 2019, the trial court sentenced Streit to 912 days of incarceration.

Discussion and Decision [3] Streit contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to find his

guilty plea to be a mitigating factor. Sentencing decisions are within the sound

discretion of the trial court, and we review them only for an abuse of discretion. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-774| July 29, 2019 Page 2 of 3 Amalfitano v. State, 956 N.E.2d 208, 211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. “An

abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effects

of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and

actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482,

490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g on other grounds, 875 N.E.2d 218 (2007). “A

guilty plea is not necessarily a mitigating factor where the defendant receives

substantial benefit from the plea or where evidence against the defendant is so

strong that the decision to plead guilty is merely pragmatic.” Amalfitano, 956

N.E.2d at 212.

[4] Here, Streit’s decision to plead guilty was both beneficial and pragmatic. In

exchange for his guilty plea to one count of Level 6 felony theft, the State

agreed to dismiss three Level 6 felony counts. The State also agreed not to file

any additional charges or enhancements. Further, the evidence against Streit

was strong. Police recovered the stolen property from residences where Streit

was living, and Streit’s girlfriend told police that she saw some of the items in

Streit’s possession. Given that Streit’s guilty plea was both beneficial and

pragmatic, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing

to consider Streit’s plea as a mitigating factor.

[5] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-774| July 29, 2019 Page 3 of 3