Ryan M. Richison v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 13, 2020
• Docket: 20A-CR-62
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 13 2020, 9:02 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE William T. Myers Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Whitehurst & Myers Law Attorney General of Indiana Marion, Indiana Myriam Serrano Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ryan M. Richison, July 13, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-62 v. Appeal from the Huntington Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Davin G. Smith, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 35C01-1801-MR-2

Bailey, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-62 | July 13, 2020 Page 1 of 8 Case Summary [1] Ryan Richison (“Richison”) challenges his aggregate twenty-seven-year

sentence for Voluntary Manslaughter,1 Residential Entry,2 and Criminal

Mischief.3 We affirm.

Issues [2] Richison presents two issues for review:

I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in the determination of aggravating and mitigating circumstances; and

II. Whether his sentence is inappropriate.

Facts and Procedural History [3] Kali Swain (“Swain”) hosted a party at her Huntington, Indiana residence to

welcome the new year of 2018. Richison was one of about thirty guests. Soon

after Richison’s arrival at the party, another guest questioned him about his

dating life, and Richison “put his fist through a wall.” (Tr. Vol. V, pg. 33.)

Another guest, Kyle Randall (“Randall”), took Richison outside to the porch;

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-1-3. 2 I.C. § 35-43-2-1.5. 3 I.C. § 35-43-1-2.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-62 | July 13, 2020 Page 2 of 8 they conversed for a while and Richison calmed down. Eventually, the two

men hugged and returned to the party.

[4] Later, the subject of race relations was raised and Richison again became

agitated. Randall again tried to calm Richison, but “it didn’t work.” (Id. at

Vol. IV, pg. 76.) Randall urged Richison to “go outside and talk about this like

grown men,” but Richison refused. (Id. at Vol. 5, pg. 65.) The situation

deteriorated until Randall’s girlfriend, Katherine Mills (“Mills”), believed that

“both wanted to fight each other.” (Id. at 77.) Mills left the kitchen to retrieve

Randall’s belongings so that they could leave. When she returned, she saw that

Randall had a profusely bleeding wound to his neck. The men scuffled over a

knife before party guests were able to separate them. Randall lifted his shirt to

display two abdominal wounds and said, “he stabbed me.” (Id. at Vol. 4, pg.

80.) Randall then slid to the floor, unconscious.

[5] Swain and Mills called 9-1-1 but Randall died within minutes, having suffered a

stab wound to his heart. Richison ran to the nearby residence of Gregory

Hamilton (“Hamilton”), where he broke out a garage window to gain entry and

hide inside. Hamilton confronted Richison and called police. Richison was

arrested and charged with Murder, and the State later added charges of

Residential Entry and Criminal Mischief.

[6] Richison was brought to trial before a jury on August 19, 2019. On August 23,

the jury convicted Richison of Voluntary Manslaughter, Residential Entry, and

Criminal Mischief. On December 13, 2019, the trial court entered an Amended

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-62 | July 13, 2020 Page 3 of 8 Sentencing Order, imposing upon Richison a term of twenty-five years

imprisonment (with five years suspended) for Voluntary Manslaughter, a

consecutive term of two years (with one year suspended) for Residential Entry,

and a concurrent term of 180 days for Criminal Mischief. Richison now

appeals.

Discussion and Decision Abuse of Discretion [7] Upon his conviction of Voluntary Manslaughter, a Level 2 felony, Richison

faced a sentence of between ten and thirty years, with seventeen and one-half

years as the advisory sentence. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5. Upon his conviction

of Residential Entry, a Level 6 felony, he faced a sentence of between six

months and two and one-half years, with one year as the advisory sentence.

I.C. § 35-50-2-7(b). Upon conviction of Criminal Mischief, a Class B

misdemeanor, he faced a sentence of not more than 180 days. I.C. § 35-50-3-3.

Richison’s sentence of twenty-five years for Voluntary Manslaughter exceeded

the advisory sentence by seven and one-half years, but five years were

suspended to probation. His sentence of two years for Residential Entry

exceeded the advisory sentence by one year, but that year was suspended to

probation. In sentencing Richison, the trial court found Richison’s criminal

history and failure to benefit from court-ordered services as aggravators and

found his potential to become a productive member of society in the future (as

evidenced by his past hard work) to be a mitigating circumstance.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-62 | July 13, 2020 Page 4 of 8 [8] 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). Accordingly, “[a] trial court’s sentencing order will be

reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Rice v. State, 6 N.E.3d 940, 943 (Ind.

2014). The Indiana Supreme Court has held that an abuse of discretion occurs

in four ways, where the trial court: (1) fails to enter a sentencing statement; (2)

cites an aggravating or mitigating factor that is not supported by the record; (3)

fails to cite factors that are clearly supported by the record; and (4) relies on

reasons that are improper as a matter of law. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d

482, 490-91 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). Richison

argues that the trial court abused its sentencing discretion by considering his

history of misdemeanor offenses and failing to consider his remorse and

hardship to his minor child, previously in Richison’s primary physical custody.

[9] The trial court’s consideration of Richison’s criminal history is supported by the

record. Richison provides no authority suggesting that a trial court is precluded

from considering misdemeanor convictions. Rather, he argues that remote

misdemeanor offenses should not be heavily weighed in the sentencing process.

We cannot provide Richison relief upon this argument. “While we review the

aggravating and mitigating factors considered by the trial court for abuse of

discretion, we do not review the relative weight or value assigned to each

factor.” Deloney v. State, 938 N.E.2d 724, 732 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied.

[10] An allegation that the trial court failed to identify a particular mitigating factor

requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-62 | July 13, 2020 Page 5 of 8 significant and clearly supported by the record. Wells v. State, 836 N.E.2d 475,

479 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). Here, Richison asked the trial court to impose a

sentence less than the advisory sentence, arguing that alcohol had been

involved, the circumstances were unlikely to reoccur, there was strong

provocation, and his criminal history was minor. He did not advance for

consideration at the sentencing hearing his role as a single parent, undue

hardship to his child, or an expression of remorse. Thus, the trial court cannot

be said to have abused its discretion by omitting consideration of these alleged

factors.

Inappropriateness [11] Article 7, Sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorize independent

appellate review and revision of a sentence imposed by a trial court. See, e.g.,

Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. This

appellate authority is embodied in Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Id. Under

7(B), the appellant must demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate in light

of the nature of his offense and his character. Id. (citing Ind. Appellate Rule

7(B)). In these instances, deference to the trial courts “should prevail unless

overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the

offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the

defendant’s character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples

of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-62 | July 13, 2020 Page 6 of 8 [12] The Indiana Supreme Court has explained that the principal role of appellate

review is an attempt to leaven the outliers, “not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’

result in each case.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225. The question is not whether

another sentence is more appropriate, but whether the sentence imposed is

inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[13] Here, the nature of the primary offense is that Richison inflicted multiple stab

wounds upon a friend who had repeatedly tried to reason with Richison and

dissuade him from his anger. The violence was committed in the vicinity of

several traumatized partygoers. Thereafter, Richison did not seek medical

attention for the victim, but fled. He then awakened Hamilton during the early

morning hours by breaking into Hamilton’s garage. There is nothing in the

circumstances of these crimes that militates toward a lesser sentence than that

imposed.

[14] As to Richison’s character, he failed to benefit from prior leniency and

rehabilitative efforts. True, his criminal history consists of only two

misdemeanor offenses. But the first of those convictions, for criminal mischief,

involved Richison’s extreme expression of anger against relatives. He used a

baseball bat to break into his mother’s house and he also vandalized his sister’s

vehicle, while threatening to kill both of them. Unpersuaded to control his

behavior, Richison then violated an order of protection. This resulted in his

conviction for Invasion of Privacy. Although he had no history of juvenile

adjudications, Richison had, at age sixteen, been ordered to refrain from

contact with his mother. The police officer who had responded to the property

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-62 | July 13, 2020 Page 7 of 8 damage report expressed the fear that Richison was so volatile, he would likely

kill someday. Sadly, although Richison received counseling services, his

destructive behavior escalated. In sum, Richison’s character has not been

portrayed in a positive light.

Conclusion [15] Richison has not demonstrated an abuse of the trial court’s sentencing

discretion. His sentence is not inappropriate.

[16] Affirmed.

Crone, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-62 | July 13, 2020 Page 8 of 8