Stephen Clayton Rainey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 31, 2017
• Docket: 82A01-1612-CR-2857
• 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 May 31 2017, 10:36 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 Yvette M. LaPlante Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Evansville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Matthew B. Mackenzie Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Stephen Clayton Rainey, May 31, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 82A01-1612-CR-2857 v. Appeal from the Vanderburgh Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Robert J. Pigman, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 82D02-1407-F2-1005

Riley, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1612-CR-2857 | May 31, 2017 Page 1 of 6 STATEMENT OF THE CASE [1] Appellant-Defendant, Stephen Clayton Rainey (Rainey), appeals his sentence

for possession of methamphetamine, a Level 4 felony, Ind. Code § 35-48-4-

6.1(a).

[2] We affirm.

ISSUE [3] Rainey raises one issue for our review, which we restate as: Whether Rainey’s

sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY [4] On July 18, 2014, Officer Lenny Reed of the City of Evansville Police

Department (Officer Reed) observed a red motorcycle, driven by Rainey, failing

to stop at a stop sign or use a turn signal. Officer Reed followed Rainey and

noticed him reaching into his waistband for a cigarette package and throwing it

away. The cigarette package was later determined to contain 9.97 grams of

methamphetamine. After he was pulled over for a traffic stop, Rainey

conceded that the cigarette package contained crystal meth which he had

purchased earlier that day. He admitted to being an addict who sold

methamphetamine to his friends. Rainey was also found to be in possession of

$875 in cash when he was arrested. At the time of his arrest, Rainey was out on

bond for possession of methamphetamine, a Level 5 felony.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1612-CR-2857 | May 31, 2017 Page 2 of 6 [5] On July 22, 2014, the State filed an Information, charging Rainey with Count I,

dealing methamphetamine, a Level 2 felony; Count II, resisting law

enforcement, a Level 6 felony; and a habitual offender enhancement. On

October 24, 2016, the State amended the Information on Count I to reflect

Rainey’s prior dealing offense though the offense remained a Level 2 felony.

The State moved to dismiss Count II and the habitual offender enhancement on

October 27, 2016.

[6] Following a jury trial on October 31, 2016, Rainey was convicted of the lesser

included offense of possession of methamphetamine as a Level 5 felony. He

admitted to the enhancing circumstance of a prior conviction and the trial court

entered his conviction as a Level 4 felony. On November 18, 2016, the trial

court conducted a sentencing hearing. Imposing a ten-year executed sentence,

the trial court noted as aggravating factors Rainey’s extensive criminal history

and that he was on bond at the time of the instant offense. The trial court found

a mitigating circumstance in Rainey’s mental health problems.

[7] Rainey now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION [8] Rainey contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the

offense and his character. Although a trial court may have acted within its

lawful discretion in imposing a sentence, 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

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1612-CR-2857 | May 31, 2017 Page 3 of 6 inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the

offender.” The defendant has the burden of persuading us that his sentence is

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

this court regards a sentence as appropriate at the end of the day turns on its

sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage

done to others, and a myriad of other facts that come to light in a given case.

Suprenant v. State, 925 N.E.2d 1280, 1284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied.

[9] We recognize that the advisory sentence “is the starting point the Legislature

has selected as an appropriate sentence of the crime committed.” Weiss v. State,

848 N.E.2d 1070, 1072 (Ind. 2006). Pursuant to the statute, a person convicted

of a Level 4 felony, shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two and

twelve years, with the advisory sentence being six years. I.C. § 35-50-2-5.

Here, Rainey received an aggravated sentence of ten years.

[10] The nature of the Rainey’s offense does not disclose anything egregious or out

of the ordinary: a traffic stop revealed his possession of methamphetamine.

Nevertheless, Rainey’s character alone justifies the sentence imposed by the

trial court. A review of his criminal history reveals that Rainey has been in

continual contact with the criminal justice system for virtually his entire adult

life. Over the years, Rainey has amassed ten misdemeanor convictions for

driving while suspended (five times), possession of paraphernalia, resisting law

enforcement, possession of marijuana (twice), and carrying a handgun without

a license, and seven felony convictions for possession of methamphetamine

(four times), dealing methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, and receiving

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1612-CR-2857 | May 31, 2017 Page 4 of 6 stolen property. Rainey has violated the terms of electronic home detention,

community corrections, and probation. At the time of sentencing, Rainey had

three separate cases pending for possession of methamphetamine, as a Class D

felony, possession of methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony, and dealing

methamphetamine, as a Level 3 felony.

[11] In support of his argument to reduce the sentence to the advisory term, Rainey

points to his mental health history and argues that “he is an addict with mental

health problems, not that he poses a danger to other individuals.” (Appellant’s

Br. p. 9). In so far Rainey now appears to argue that the trial court should have

awarded more weight to this recognized mitigating factor, we note that “a trial

court can not now be said to have abused its discretion in failing to properly

weigh such factors.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007),

clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). Although Rainey claims his

conviction for possession of methamphetamine is a crime without a victim, this

argument is strongly contradicted by Rainey’s own statements. After being

pulled over by Officer Reed, he admitted to selling methamphetamine to his

friends. Moreover, his criminal history discloses convictions for possession of

methamphetamine and dealing methamphetamine.

[12] Accordingly, we conclude that Rainey has failed to carry his burden to establish

that his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1612-CR-2857 | May 31, 2017 Page 5 of 6 CONCLUSION [13] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court not inappropriately

sentenced Rainey to a sentence of ten years.

[14] Affirmed.

[15] Najam, J. and Bradford, J. concur

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1612-CR-2857 | May 31, 2017 Page 6 of 6