Ronnie D. Ball, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 27, 2017
• Docket: 02A03-1609-CR-2117
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Feb 27 2017, 9:54 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), CLERK this Memorandum Decision shall not be Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals regarded as precedent or cited before any and Tax Court

court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE P. Stephen Miller Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Caryn N. Szyper Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ronnie D. Ball, Jr., February 27, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 02A03-1609-CR-2117 v. Appeal from the Allen Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D06-1503-F5-55

Najam, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1609-CR-2117 | February 27, 2017 Page 1 of 5 Statement of the Case [1] Ronnie D. Ball, Jr. appeals his sentence following his conviction for corrupt

business influence, a Level 5 felony. Ball presents a single issue for our review,

namely, whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the

offense and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On February 25, 2015, the State charged Ball with corrupt business influence.

The information alleged that, between July 21 and September 17, 2014, Ball,

along with “a group of individuals” that formed an “enterprise,” engaged in “a

pattern of racketeering activity . . . involving a series of thefts of miscellaneous

merchandise from Lowe’s” home improvement store. Appellant’s App. at 14.

The value of the stolen merchandise totaled $3,802.69.

[3] On August 3, 2015, Ball pleaded guilty as charged. The trial court took Ball’s

guilty plea under advisement, and Ball agreed to waive his “right to be

sentenced within thirty (30) days.” Id. at 30. The trial court deferred

sentencing and placed Ball in the Drug Court Diversion Program (“the

program”). Id. On June 30, 2016, Ball failed a drug test, testing positive for

cocaine and morphine, and the drug court case manager filed a petition to

terminate Ball from the program. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked

Ball’s participation in the program and scheduled a sentencing hearing.

[4] At the sentencing hearing, the trial court accepted Ball’s guilty plea and entered

judgment of conviction. In sentencing Ball, the trial court identified the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1609-CR-2117 | February 27, 2017 Page 2 of 5 following mitigators: his guilty plea; his acceptance of responsibility; and his

“efforts while in drug court.” Id. at 76. And the trial court identified as

aggravating Ball’s criminal history, which began in 1997 and includes one prior

felony and three misdemeanors. The trial court emphasized Ball’s “failed

efforts [at] rehabilitation” and prior lenient sentences, including community

service, unsupervised probation, transitional living, and drug court. Id. The

trial court sentenced Ball to the advisory term of three years. This appeal

ensued.

Discussion and Decision [5] Ball contends that his three-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature

of the offense and his character. As we have explained:

Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) permits an Indiana appellate court to “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.” We assess the trial court’s recognition or nonrecognition of aggravators and mitigators as an initial guide to determining whether the sentence imposed was inappropriate. Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). The principal role of appellate review is to “leaven the outliers.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). A defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review. Roush v. State, 875 N.E.2d 801, 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

Robinson v. State, 61 N.E.3d 1226, 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1609-CR-2117 | February 27, 2017 Page 3 of 5 [6] On appeal, Ball asserts that the advisory sentence is inappropriate in light of the

nature of the offense because “his crime was a far cry from the most severe type

of corrupt business influence.” Appellant’s Br. at 10. And Ball maintains that

his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character based on his past military

service and his “limited criminal history” despite his difficult childhood, post-

traumatic stress disorder, and drug addiction. Id. We cannot agree.

[7] Regarding the nature of the offense, Ball and his cohorts stole a total of $3,802-

worth of merchandise from various Lowe’s stores over the course of more than

two months, “return[ed]” the stolen goods in exchange for Lowe’s gift cards,

and sold those gift cards to a pawn shop for cash. Appellant’s App. at 15. Ball

was one of seven people who planned and executed these thefts in order to

support their drug habits. Regarding his character, while we commend Ball’s

military service, the record supports the trial court’s determination that he has

failed to take advantage of lenient sentences and opportunities for rehabilitation

in the past. And Ball was given the opportunity to avoid the instant conviction

through participation in the Drug Court Diversion Program, but he was

terminated.1 Finally, at the time of sentencing, Ball owed approximately

$35,000 in child support for his two children. We cannot say that the advisory

1 The record shows that, during the program, Ball failed four drug screens and failed to submit to one drug screen, and he did not complete the required community service hours.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1609-CR-2117 | February 27, 2017 Page 4 of 5 sentence of three years is inappropriate in light of the nature of Ball’s offense

and his character and, thus, we affirm his sentence. 2

[8] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and May, J., concur.

2 We note that the trial court recommended Ball for purposeful incarceration, whereby Ball would get treatment for his drug addiction.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1609-CR-2117 | February 27, 2017 Page 5 of 5