Milton Antonio Garcia v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 10, 2019
• Docket: 19A-CR-1583
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Dec 10 2019, 10:34 am

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 Leanna Weissmann Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Josiah Swinney Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Milton Antonio Garcia, December 10, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-1583 v. Appeal from the LaGrange Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Lisa Bowen- Appellee-Plaintiff. Slaven, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 44D01-1606-F2-5

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1583| December 10, 2019 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] In June of 2019, the trial court sentenced Milton Antonio Garcia to thirty years

of incarceration after he pled guilty to Level 2 felony burglary. Garcia contends

that his sentence is inappropriate. Because we disagree, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On June 12, 2016, Garcia boasted to three of his friends that he knew about a

home in LaGrange County that had numerous guns that he had failed to steal

when he had burglarized the same home a few years previously. The group

agreed to burglarize the home. Residing in the LaGrange County home was

sixty-eight-year-old Phil Curtis along with his sixty-five-year-old wife and

ninety-four-year-old mother-in-law. After arriving at the residence, Garcia and

two of his co-defendants pried open the door while the other co-defendant

remained in his vehicle. Garcia and one of the co-defendants were armed with

handguns. As they broke into the residence, they startled Curtis, who had been

asleep on the couch. Curtis was struck in the back of the head with a handgun

and ordered to open the safe. Upon his hesitation, Curtis was told that he

would be shot in the knee, stomach, or head if he refused to open the safe. At

that point, one of the co-defendants fired his handgun inside the residence.

Garcia yelled at Curtis, “I’m tired of f***ing with you,” tr. p. 27, and told the

co-defendant holding Curtis at gunpoint to “Pop that m*****-f*****.” Id.

Finally, Garcia and his co-defendants gained access to Curtis’s safe and stole

numerous guns, collectible coins, and prescription drugs. During the burglary,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1583| December 10, 2019 Page 2 of 4 Curtis’s wife and mother-in-law heard the attack from upstairs and called law

enforcement. Upon law enforcement’s arrival, the co-defendants were arrested

in or near the residence, but Garcia was not apprehended until he was found in

a neighboring county with many of the stolen items inside his vehicle.

[3] On June 16, 2016, the State charged Garcia with Level 2 felony burglary, Level

3 felony armed robbery, and Level 3 felony criminal confinement. Pursuant to a

plea agreement, Garcia agreed to plead guilty to burglary with sentencing at the

discretion of the trial court. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the

remaining charges. On June 19, 2019, the trial court accepted the plea

agreement and sentenced Garcia to thirty years of incarceration.

Discussion and Decision [4] Garcia contends that his thirty-year sentence is inappropriate. 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.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). “Sentencing is principally

a discretionary function in which the trial court’s judgment should receive

considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008)

(internal citations omitted). The defendant bears the burden of proving that his

sentence is inappropriate in light of both the nature of his offense and his

character. Gil v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1231, 1237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Garcia was

sentenced to thirty years for his Level 2 felony burglary conviction, the

maximum possible penalty. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1583| December 10, 2019 Page 3 of 4 [5] The nature of Garcia’s egregious offense does not support a reduction in his

sentence. Garcia was convicted of Level 2 felony burglary after he led a group

of co-defendants in burglarizing Curtis’s home for a second time. Sixty-eight-

year-old Curtis was struck in the head with a handgun and Garcia ordered the

co-defendant who was holding Curtis at gunpoint to “Pop that m*****-f*****.”

Tr. p. 27. In addition to Curtis, Garcia also victimized Curtis’s sixty-five-year-

old wife and ninety-four-year-old mother-in-law, who were present in the

residence during the burglary.

[6] Garcia’s character also does not support a reduction in his sentence. At twenty-

seven years old, Garcia has prior convictions for Level 4 felony burglary, Level

4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Level 6

felony failure to return to lawful detention, and five misdemeanors. Garcia has

also violated the terms of his probation and community corrections. Moreover,

this was the second time Garcia burglarized the Curtis residence, which clearly

demonstrates that despite Garcia’s prior contacts with the criminal justice

system, he is unwilling to conform his actions to societal norms. Garcia has

failed to establish that his sentence is inappropriate.

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

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

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1583| December 10, 2019 Page 4 of 4