Mitchell Maddox v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 14, 2016
• Docket: 34A02-1605-CR-1124
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Sep 14 2016, 9:30 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court

the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Donald E.C. Leicht Gregory F. Zoeller Kokomo, Indiana Attorney General

Lyubov Gore Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Mitchell Maddox, September 14, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 34A02-1605-CR-1124 v. Appeal from the Howard Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Lynn Murray, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 34C01-1409-F5-196

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1605-CR-1124 | September 14, 2016 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary Mitchell Maddox pled guilty to Level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a

license, and in exchange the State dismissed numerous felony and

misdemeanor charges. The trial court sentenced him to five years, with one

year suspended to probation. Maddox now appeals, arguing that his sentence is

inappropriate. Because Maddox has failed to persuade us that his sentence is

inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [1] In September 2014—two months after being released from the Indiana

Department of Correction—twenty-two-year-old Maddox was charged with

Level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a license (based on a previous felony

conviction within fifteen years), Level 5 felony obliterating identifying marks on

a handgun, Level 6 felony auto theft, Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic

drug, and Level 6 felony possession of a syringe in Cause No. 34C01-1409-F5-

196 (“F5-196”).

[2] Less than a month later, in October 2014, Maddox was charged with Class A

misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor leaving the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1605-CR-1124 | September 14, 2016 Page 2 of 6 scene of an accident, and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication in Cause

No. 34C01-1410-CM-215 (“CM-215”).1

[3] Then, in May 2015, Maddox was charged with Class A misdemeanor

possession of marijuana in Cause No. 34C01-1505-CM-59 (“CM-59”). The

following month, Maddox was charged with Level 2 felony dealing in a

narcotic drug in a fourth case.2

[4] In January 2016, Maddox and the State entered into a plea agreement.

Specifically, Maddox agreed to plead guilty in F5-196 to Level 5 felony carrying

a handgun without a license. Appellant’s App. p. 64. In exchange, the State

agreed to dismiss the other charges in that cause number as well as the

misdemeanor charges in CM-215 and CM-59. Tr. p. 4-5; Appellant’s App. p.

66. The plea agreement did not address the Level 2 felony dealing charge. Tr.

p. 5. In addition, the parties agreed that “the sentence [would] not exceed five

(5) years.” Appellant’s App. p. 64. The trial court accepted the plea agreement,

entered judgment of conviction for the Level 5 felony, dismissed the remaining

charges in F5-196 and cause numbers CM-215 and CM-59, and set the case for

sentencing.

1 The State cites page 126 of the Appellant’s Appendix (which is part of Maddox’s PSI) for this information, but this page is missing from the appendix on file with this Court. Because Maddox does not dispute this information, see Tr. p. 20 (defense counsel noting only one correction to be made to PSI), we take it to be true. 2 The State also cites page 126 for both of these cases.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1605-CR-1124 | September 14, 2016 Page 3 of 6 [5] Following the sentencing hearing, the trial court identified Maddox’s guilty plea

as a mitigator but gave it “basically no weight” because of the “considerable

benefits” he received in the number of dismissed charges. Tr. p. 24. The trial

court found “significant” aggravators: (1) Maddox had a criminal history

despite being “a fairly young man”; (2) he had multiple probation violations,

including refusing to complete alcohol and drug treatment; and (3) he

committed several crimes after his arrest in this case. Id. at 24-26. The trial

court sentenced Maddox to five years, with one year suspended to supervised

probation.

[6] Maddox now appeals his sentence.

Discussion and Decision [7] Maddox contends that his five-year sentence with one year suspended to

supervised probation is inappropriate and should be revised to “five (5) years,

with one (1) or two (2) years incarceration and the remainder suspended to

supervised probation.” Appellant’s Br. p. 8.

[8] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we may 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 offense and the character

of the offender. Because sentencing is a highly case-sensitive endeavor, it is

generally a decision that is best made at the trial-court level. Gibson v. State, 43

N.E.3d 231, 241 (Ind. 2015) (citing Saylor v. State, 808 N.E.2d 646, 649 (Ind.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1605-CR-1124 | September 14, 2016 Page 4 of 6 2004)). When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence under 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. Weedman v. State, 21 N.E.3d 873, 894 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans.

denied. It is the defendant’s burden on appeal to persuade us that his sentence is

inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

[9] A person who commits a Level 5 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of

between one and six years, with the advisory sentence being three years. Ind.

Code § 35-50-2-6(b). Here, Maddox’s plea agreement provided that his

sentence would not exceed five years, and the trial court sentenced him to five

years with one year suspended to probation.

[10] Maddox claims that there is nothing violent about the nature of the offense

because “[c]arrying a handgun is not a violent act.” Appellant’s Br. p. 7. Even

if that is true in this case, it is Maddox’s character that convinces us that his

five-year sentence with one year suspended is appropriate. As even Maddox

concedes, “he is willing to knowingly commit a crime” and “has trouble

following rules of probation.” Id. Indeed, after his arrest for carrying a

handgun without a license (which occurred a mere two months after his release

from the DOC), Maddox was arrested for five offenses under three separate

cause numbers—two of which were dismissed by the plea agreement in this

case. In addition, Maddox has failed to take advantage of the opportunities

that the courts have given him before by violating his probation multiple times.

Maddox has failed to persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1605-CR-1124 | September 14, 2016 Page 5 of 6 [11] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Najam, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1605-CR-1124 | September 14, 2016 Page 6 of 6