Ross M. Jordan v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 31, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-903
• 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 Jul 31 2018, 9:54 am the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Donald C. Swanson, Jr. Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana Fort Wayne, Indiana Henry A. Flores, Jr. Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ross M. Jordan, July 31, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-903 v. Appeal from the Allen Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D04-1706-F6-634

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-903 | July 31, 2018 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] After pleading guilty to Level 6 felony theft, Ross M. Jordan was sentenced to a

one-year term, all of which was to be served in the Department of Correction

(“DOC”). Jordan challenges the appropriateness of his placement in the DOC.

We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] Between July and September of 2016, Jordan stole jewelry, electronics, and

lawn equipment from his mother. He then pawned the stolen items at various

pawn shops in exchange for $880. On June 8, 2017, the State charged Jordan

with Level 6 felony theft. Jordan pled guilty and was placed in the Allen

County Drug Court Diversion Program (“the program”). On February 21,

2018, Jordan’s placement in the program was revoked after he admitted to

committing numerous violations of the program’s rules. The trial court

subsequently sentenced him to a one-year term, all of which was to be served in

the DOC.

Discussion and Decision [3] Jordan contends that the trial court’s order that he serve his one-year sentence

in the DOC is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “The

Court may 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.” Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-903 | July 31, 2018 Page 2 of 4 The location where a sentence is to be served is an appropriate focus for application of our review and revise authority. Nonetheless, we note that it will be quite difficult for a defendant to prevail on a claim that the placement of his or her sentence is inappropriate. As a practical matter, trial courts know the feasibility of alternative placements in particular counties or communities. For example, a trial court is aware of the availability, costs, and entrance requirements of community corrections placements in a specific locale. Additionally, the question under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. A defendant challenging the placement of a sentence must convince us that the given placement is itself inappropriate.

Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 343–44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (internal citation

omitted).

[4] In this case, Jordan violated his Mother’s trust by stealing numerous items from

her home. These items included jewelry, electronics, and yard equipment. He

then pawned these items for $880. Jordan’s actions demonstrate a disregard for

both his mother and her property.

[5] In addition, the fact that Jordan would steal from his mother reflects poorly on

his character. Jordan’s criminal history, albeit relatively minor, indicates that

he has failed to alter his behavior and refrain from continued criminal activity.

It also does not reflect well that Jordan took advantage of the leniency of the

trial court in this case by committing numerous violations of the rules of the

program. We cannot say that it was unreasonable for the trial court to infer

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-903 | July 31, 2018 Page 3 of 4 that Jordan would not respond well to similar rules if placed on probation or in

community corrections.

[6] Finally, Jordan acknowledges that he suffers from an addiction and that his

criminal behavior is generally related to his drug use. Jordan, however, has not

sought treatment for his addiction. While Jordan claims to be sober, we are

unconvinced that, even if true, such sobriety will be lasting without treatment.

For these reasons, Jordan has failed to meet his burden of convincing us that

placement in the DOC was inappropriate. See id., 876 N.E.2d at 44 (providing

that a defendant must convince us that the placement ordered by the trial court

is inappropriate).

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

Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-903 | July 31, 2018 Page 4 of 4