Michael Moffatt v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 8, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-1424
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 08 2018, 8:27 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 Brian A. Karle Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Ball Eggleston, PC Attorney General of Indiana Lafayette, Indiana Lyubov Gore Tyler G. Banks Deputy Attorneys General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Michael Moffatt, November 8, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-1424 v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Plaintiff. Steven P. Meyer, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 79D02-1802-F4-3

Kirsch, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1424 | November 8, 2018 Page 1 of 9 [1] Michael Moffatt (“Moffatt”) pleaded guilty to Level 4 felony unlawful

possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (“SVF”).1 On appeal, he

challenges his sentence, raising the following restated issue: whether Moffatt’s

six-year advisory sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense

and Moffatt’s character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] On or about January 16, 2004, Moffatt was convicted of Class C felony robbery

in Tippecanoe County. Tr. Vol. 2 at 13. He was designated an SVF and

forbidden from possessing a firearm. Id. at 13, 17.

[4] In mid-February 2018, Moffatt, his wife, Autumn, and their two children began

living in an Economy Inn in Lafayette, Indiana. Id. at 13-14, 24. Even though

he knew he was not allowed to have a firearm, Moffatt possessed a pellet gun,

which he openly carried for protection. Id. at 14, 25-26. During this time,

Moffatt and Autumn regularly used methamphetamine and drank alcohol in

front of their children. Id. at 29-30, 33-35.

[5] On the Moffatts’ first night in the hotel, someone attempted to break into their

room. Id. at 25. Autumn called the police, and a day or two later, she bought a

1 See Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5(c).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1424 | November 8, 2018 Page 2 of 9 .380 handgun. Id. at 25-27. At no point did Moffatt use or carry the handgun.

Id. at 16-17.

[6] On February 22, 2018, local police and Department of Child Services

employees visited Moffatt’s hotel room for a “well-being check.” Id. at 15. The

officers asked Moffatt if there was anything in the room that they should know

about, and Moffatt alerted them to both the .380 handgun and the pellet gun,

which were stowed on either a shelf or luggage rack. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 8;

Tr. Vol. 2 at 15-16, 28-29. The handgun was not loaded, but it had a loaded clip

lying next to it. Tr. Vol. 2 at 16. The handgun was not within reach of the

children, and it was never in the actual possession of Moffatt. Id. at 16-17, 28.

[7] On February 23, 2018, Moffatt was charged with Level 4 felony unlawful

possession of a firearm by an SVF. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 7. On April 25,

2016, Moffatt pleaded guilty as charged without the benefit of a plea agreement.

Tr. Vol. 2 at 4, 12. In doing so, he admitted he constructively possessed the

handgun. Id. at 16-17.

[8] At the May 21, 2018 sentencing hearing, the trial court cited Moffatt’s criminal

history, his three prior probation violations, and his unsatisfactory discharge

from probation as aggravating circumstances. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 30; Tr.

Vol. 2 at 45-46. As mitigating factors, it found that Moffatt pleaded guilty

without the benefit of a plea agreement; that he cooperated with police when he

was arrested; that he has accepted responsibility for his actions; and that he

suffers from mental health and substance abuse issues, although he has not fully

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1424 | November 8, 2018 Page 3 of 9 exploited treatment options that had been offered to him. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2

at 31; Tr. Vol. 2 at 44-46. The trial court concluded that the aggravating factors

and mitigating factors were in equipoise and sentenced Moffatt to six years, the

advisory sentence for a Level 4 felony, with four years executed in the

Department of Correction and two years suspended to supervised probation.

Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 5, 31, 39; Tr. Vol. 2 at 46-47. Moffatt now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [9] Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), we may revise a sentence if, after due

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

considering the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.

Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d

218 (2007). We consider not only the aggravators and mitigators found by the

trial court but also any other factors appearing in the record. Johnson v. State,

986 N.E.2d 852, 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). We defer to the trial court’s

decision, and our goal is to determine whether the appellant’s sentence is

inappropriate, not whether some other sentence would be more appropriate.

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). When we review a sentence, we seek to leaven the outliers, not to

achieve a perceived correct result. Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1424 | November 8, 2018 Page 4 of 9 Nature of Offense

[10] When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting

point in our analysis. Holloway v. State, 950 N.E.2d 803, 806 (Ind. Ct. App.

2011); Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 494. A Level 4 felony carries an advisory

sentence of six years, with a range of two to twelve years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-

5.5. A reviewing court is “unlikely to consider an advisory sentence

inappropriate.” Shelby v. State, 986 N.E.2d 345, 371 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans.

denied. A defendant carries a “particularly heavy burden” to show that his

advisory sentence is inappropriate. Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1089

(Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.

[11] Relying on Johnson, 986 N.E.2d at 856, Moffatt argues that his sentence is

inappropriate because his offense was significantly less egregious than the

“typical” offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by an SVF. In support, he

recites the following facts: 1) he possessed only a single firearm2 and did so for

less than one week; 2) he did not buy the handgun; Autumn bought it for home

protection after their residence was burglarized; 3) he never handled the

handgun and did not use it to commit a crime; and 4) he cooperated with the

officers who came to the residence by alerting them to the presence of the

handgun. See Appellant’s Br. at 8.

2 Moffatt actually possessed two firearms: 1) the .380 handgun (through constructive possession); and 2) the pellet gun, which, under Indiana Code section 35-47-1-5, is a firearm.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1424 | November 8, 2018 Page 5 of 9 [12] However, the “less egregious” analysis from Johnson does not apply here. In

Johnson, the trial court imposed a sentence greater than the advisory sentence,

unlike the six-year advisory sentence the trial court imposed here. The Johnson

court noted, “One factor we consider when determining the appropriateness of

a deviation from the advisory sentence is whether there is anything egregious

about the offense committed by the defendant that makes it different from the

“typical” offense . . . . Id. at 856 (emphasis added). Thus, because the trial

court here imposed the advisory sentence, Johnson has no bearing on whether

Moffatt’s sentence is inappropriate.

[13] Beyond the inapplicability of Johnson, several factors regarding the nature of

Moffatt’s offense show that his sentence is not inappropriate. Moffatt did not

hide the handgun from the children but left it on a rack and left an ammunition

clip next the handgun. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 8; Tr. Vol. 2 at 16. Moffatt also

regularly carried a pellet gun. Id. at 14, 25-26. Thus, the nature of Moffatt’s

offense shows that his sentence is not inappropriate.

Character of Offender

[14] Moffatt contends his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character. He

contends that by pleading guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement, he has

accepted his responsibility for his offense. He also notes that before he was

sentenced, he participated in classes to pursue his high school equivalency. Tr.

Vol. 2 at 32-33. He also points to his mental illnesses, which include post-

traumatic stress disorder, ADHD, manic depression, and paranoid

schizophrenia. Id. at 5-6, 31. He claims that his untreated mental illness Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1424 | November 8, 2018 Page 6 of 9 exacerbates his drug and alcohol problems and contributed to his poor decision-

making. See Wampler v State, 67 N.E.2d 633, 634-35 (Ind. 2017) (recognizing

the defendant’s untreated mental health issues and revising sentencing under

Appellate Rule 7(B)).

[15] Moffatt concedes that his criminal history “is a strike against him.” Appellant’s

Br. at 9. Nonetheless, he argues that despite this history, his six-year advisory

sentence is inappropriate. First, be contends that his lone prior felony

conviction, the 2004 robbery conviction that made him an SVF, should not be

used as an aggravator because that conviction was the basis of his SVF status.

Moffatt contends that, as such, the 2004 robbery conviction was an element of

the instant offense for unlawful possession of a firearm by an SVF. Citing

Spears v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1161, 1167 (Ind. 2000), he claims that as an element

of his instant offense, the 2004 robbery conviction cannot be used as an

aggravating factor for this offense.3 Second, even if Spears does not apply,

Moffatt argues that the felony conviction should not carry great weight because

that conviction occurred fourteen years ago. As to his many misdemeanor

convictions, Moffatt downplays those offenses by claiming that most of those

3 In so arguing, Moffatt is impliedly arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the advisory sentence, but nowhere in his brief does Moffatt explicitly raise a separate abuse-of-discretion argument, as he should, because such an argument is analyzed separately from argument that a sentence is inappropriate. “As our Supreme Court has made clear, inappropriate sentence and abuse of discretion claims are to be analyzed separately. See Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind.2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind.2007).” King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1424 | November 8, 2018 Page 7 of 9 convictions were for non-violent offenses, such as public intoxication and minor

consumption. Appellant’s Conf. App. Vol. 2 at 48-49.

[16] We reject Moffatt’s attempt to minimize the severity of his significant criminal

record. Even without considering his 2004 felony robbery conviction, we find

Moffatt’s substantial criminal history is a firm basis for finding that his advisory

sentence is not inappropriate. That criminal record shows that as a juvenile,

Moffatt was adjudicated delinquent for what would have been Class D felony

theft and possession of a firearm, and he was often arrested, for offenses such as

alcohol-related crimes, trafficking with an inmate, disorderly conduct, and

resisting law enforcement. Id. at 46-48. As an adult, Moffatt has been convicted

of, inter alia, Class C felony robbery, resisting law enforcement, public

intoxication (three times), and disorderly conduct. Id. Moffatt’s probation has

been revoked three times, and he is at a high risk to reoffend. Id. at 53.

Moffatt’s criminal record shows that his six-year advisory sentence is not

inappropriate.

[17] We also reject Moffatt’s attempt to minimize his drug and alcohol problems.

Moffatt has been abusing alcohol for twenty-four years. Id. at 52-53. He has

used marijuana, synthetic marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, mushrooms,

ecstasy, and Lortab. Id. His substance abuse continues despite participating in

numerous substance abuse treatment programs. Id. at 53; Tr. Vol. 2 at 30-31,

34. When a defendant is aware of a substance abuse problem but has not taken

steps to treat it, the trial court can determine that the addiction is an aggravating

circumstance. See Bryant v. State, 802 N.E.2d 486, 501 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1424 | November 8, 2018 Page 8 of 9 Further, Moffatt and Autumn regularly abused methamphetamine and alcohol

in front of their children. Tr. Vol. 2 at 29-30, 33-35. The children tested positive

for both methamphetamine and THC. Appellant’s Conf. App. Vol. 2 at 51. Thus,

as with his criminal history, Moffatt’s history of substance abuse shows that his

sentence is not inappropriate.

[18] Finally, we are unpersuaded that Moffatt’s sentence is inappropriate because he

accepted responsibility for his crime by pleading guilty. “[T]he significance of a

guilty plea as a mitigating factor varies from case to case.” Anglemyer, 875

N.E.2d at 221. Because of the compelling evidence of Moffatt’s guilt, his plea

was arguably “more likely the result of pragmatism than acceptance of

responsibility and remorse.” Mull v. State, 770 N.E.2d 308, 314 (Ind. 2002)

(citations omitted); see also Primmer v. State, 857 N.E.2d 11, 16 (Ind. Ct. App.

2006), trans. denied.

[19] In sum, Moffatt has not satisfied the “particularly heavy burden” to show that

his six-year advisory sentence is inappropriate. See Fernbach, 954 N.E.2d at

1089.

[20] Affirmed.

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

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1424 | November 8, 2018 Page 9 of 9