Russell R. Rossman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 14, 2019
• Docket: 18A-CR-2215
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Mar 14 2019, 7:47 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK regarded as precedent or cited before any 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 Michael P. DeArmitt Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Columbus, Indiana Attorney General Evan Matthew Comer Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Russell R. Rossman, March 14, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-2215 v. Appeal from the Bartholomew Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Kelly S. Benjamin, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 03C01-1802-F6-755

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2215 | March 14, 2019 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] Russell R. Rossman pled guilty to two counts of Level 6 felony theft, and the

trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of two-and-a-half years, the

maximum sentence allowed by the plea agreement. Rossman now appeals,

arguing that his sentence is inappropriate. We disagree and therefore affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In December 2017, Rossman, while at the Columbus Regional Hospital, took

six laptop computers belonging to the hospital and one laptop computer

belonging to a hospital visitor, all without the owners’ permission. Rossman

was caught, and the computers were returned to the owners. The State charged

Rossman with two counts of Level 6 felony theft (one count elevated because

the value of the property was at least $750 and the other count elevated due to

Rossman’s prior criminal-conversion conviction). Thereafter, the State and

Rossman entered into a plea agreement, which provided that Rossman would

plead guilty as charged, the sentences would run concurrently, and the State

would dismiss an unrelated cause number.

[3] At the sentencing hearing, Rossman apologized for taking the computers,

explaining that he had done so to support his fourteen-year meth addiction.

Despite his drug-related criminal history, Rossman claimed that just “last

night,” an inmate made it clear to him: if he uses meth, he will be back in jail.

Tr. p. 24. The trial court identified three aggravators: (1) Rossman has a

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2215 | March 14, 2019 Page 2 of 5 criminal history, including three felony convictions (theft, manufacturing

methamphetamine, and trafficking in a controlled substance with an inmate)

and four misdemeanor convictions (criminal conversion, public intoxication,

operating while intoxicated, and battery); (2) he has violated his probation

twice; and (3) he has been offered drug treatment but did not take advantage of

it. The court identified no mitigators. The court acknowledged that Rossman

pled guilty in this case but did not identify it as a mitigator based on the “big

benefit” he received by virtue of concurrent sentences in this case and the

dismissal of an unrelated cause number. Id. at 31. Accordingly, the court

sentenced Rossman to the maximum term of two-and-a-half years on each

count and, per the plea agreement, ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

[4] Rossman now appeals his sentence.

Discussion and Decision [5] Rossman contends that his two-and-a-half-year sentence is inappropriate in

light of his character and the nature of the offenses and asks us to revise it to

one-and-a-half years.

[6] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that an appellate 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.” Whether a sentence is

inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2215 | March 14, 2019 Page 3 of 5 of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad of other factors that

come to light in a given case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind.

2008). Because we generally defer to the judgment of trial courts in sentencing

matters, defendants bear the burden of persuading us that their sentences are

inappropriate. Schaaf v. State, 54 N.E.3d 1041, 1044-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

[7] We agree with Rossman that the nature of the offenses is “not particularly

heinous.” Appellant’s Br. p. 10. Rossman stole laptop computers from a

hospital and a hospital visitor. And, as Rossman points out, the computers

were returned to the owners.

[8] As for Rossman’s character, he concedes that he cannot, “in good faith,”

challenge the aggravators that the trial court identified. Id. However, he claims

that the fact that he expressed remorse for his actions and “now understands

that he must stay away from methamphetamine” supports the revision of his

sentence to one-and-a-half years. Id. at 11 (emphasis added). The evidence

shows, however, that Rossman has had numerous chances to stay away from

meth but has not done so. As the trial court outlined, Rossman has served time

in the Department of Correction, been placed on probation five times, violated

probation two times, and undergone drug treatment. Rossman’s most recent

probation violation, from 2015, was for using meth. He was sent back to the

DOC to serve the remainder of his sentence and was released from prison in the

fall of 2016. After his release, Rossman resumed using meth and, about a year

later, committed these thefts in order to support his ounce-a-day meth habit.

Although Rossman expressed remorse at the sentencing hearing, the trial court

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2215 | March 14, 2019 Page 4 of 5 found that he was “lying” during his apology and told him to “[s]top making

excuses.” Tr. p. 31. Rossman has not met his burden of persuading us that his

sentence is inappropriate. We therefore affirm the trial court.

[9] Affirmed.

Mathias, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2215 | March 14, 2019 Page 5 of 5