Tara L. Wakefield v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 4, 2016
• Docket: 85A02-1602-CR-311
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED MEMORANDUM DECISION Aug 04 2016, 8:05 am

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), CLERK Indiana Supreme Court this Memorandum Decision shall not be Court of Appeals and Tax Court regarded as precedent or cited before any 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 Justin R. Wall Gregory F. Zoeller Wall Legal Services Attorney General of Indiana Huntington, Indiana Paula J. Beller Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Tara L. Wakefield, August 4, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 85A02-1602-CR-311 v. Appeal from the Wabash Superior Court State of Indiana The Honorable Appellee-Plaintiff. Christopher M. Goff, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 85D01-1512-F6-1134

Kirsch, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1602-CR-311| August 4, 2016 Page 1 of 6 [1] Tara L. Wakefield (“Wakefield”) pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a

syringe as a Level 6 felony,1 and the trial court sentenced her to one and one-

half years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction. On appeal,

Wakefield contends that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of

the offense and the character of the offender.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] On December 11, 2015, Wabash Police Department Officers went to an

apartment on North Comstock, in Wabash, Indiana, to investigate a report that

an individual had threatened another with a knife. The tenant gave officers

permission to search his apartment, and during that search, Officer Jason

Mooney discovered a woman, later identified as Wakefield, asleep in bed.

Wakefield initially identified herself as Jessica Sparks. However, during further

questioning, she admitted that she lied about her name because warrants for her

arrest had been issued in Cass and Huntington Counties.

[4] Wakefield was arrested on the warrants and transported to the Wabash County

Jail with her purse and coat. During booking, officers searched Wakefield’s

purse and found a hypodermic needle at the bottom. An eyeglass case

containing another hypodermic needle and a metal spoon with burn marks on

1 See Ind. Code § 16-42-19-18(a).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1602-CR-311| August 4, 2016 Page 2 of 6 the bottom of it was also found in Wakefield’s purse. Wakefield was charged

with unlawful possession of a syringe and possession of paraphernalia.

[5] At the initial hearing, Wakefield pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of

syringe, a Level 6 felony without the assistance of counsel and without the

benefit of a negotiated plea. The possession of paraphernalia count was later

dismissed. The trial court accepted Wakefield’s plea and took sentencing under

advisement to order a Pre-Sentence Investigation Report.

[6] At sentencing, the trial court found in mitigation the fact that Wakefield entered

her plea of guilty without the benefit of counsel and without a negotiated plea

agreement. Tr. at 22. The trial court found the following aggravating factors:

the risk that Wakefield will commit another crime; the nature and

circumstances of the crimes committed; and her prior criminal record, her

character, and condition. Id. Wakefield’s prior criminal history included

approximately five misdemeanor convictions, one felony conviction, and one

probation violation. The trial court also considered that Wakefield had

“significant problems in the past” with drug and alcohol issues. Id. The trial

court determined that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors

and sentenced Wakefield to one and one-half years executed. Wakefield now

appeals.

Discussion and Decision [7] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) empowers us to independently review and revise

sentences authorized by statute if, after due consideration, we find the trial

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1602-CR-311| August 4, 2016 Page 3 of 6 court’s decision is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the

character of the offender. Anderson v. State, 989 N.E.2d 823, 827 (Ind. Ct. App.

2013), trans. denied. “Even if the trial court followed the appropriate procedure

in arriving at its sentence, this court still maintains a constitutional power to

revise a sentence it finds inappropriate.” Golden v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1212, 1218

(Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Revision of a sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B)

requires the appellant to demonstrate that her sentence is inappropriate in light

of both the nature of his offenses and her character. See Ind. Appellate Rule

7(B); Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to

the trial court “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). The defendant bears the burden to

“persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met this

inappropriateness standard of review.” Calvert v. State, 930 N.E.2d 633, 643

(Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

[8] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge that

the advisory sentence is the starting point which the Legislature has selected as

an appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d

1073, 1081 (Ind. 2006). Here, Wakefield was convicted of Level 6 felony

unlawful possession of a syringe. The sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1602-CR-311| August 4, 2016 Page 4 of 6 between six months and two and one-half years, with an advisory sentence of

one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7.

[9] Wakefield argues that her one and one-half year sentence is inappropriate in

light of the nature of the offense and her character. As to the nature of the

offense, Wakefield was found in possession of two hypodermic needles.

Although the nature of the offense is not particularly egregious, Wakefield had

warrants for her arrest in two counties and was a fugitive at the time of her

arrest, and she was also on probation in Huntington County and facing charges

in Cass County. She gave the police a fake name in an attempt to conceal her

identity because she knew about the warrants.

[10] As to Wakefield’s character, since 2002 she has accumulated five misdemeanor

convictions and one felony conviction and has pending misdemeanor and

felony charges in multiple counties. Wakefield’s prior convictions are for

battery resulting in bodily injury, conversion, check deception, and robbery

while armed with a deadly weapon or resulting in bodily injury to another

person. Wakefield has also been found to be in violation of her supervised

probation. At the time of the present conviction, Wakefield had pending

charges for corrupt business influence and six counts of theft, all of which are

felonies.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1602-CR-311| August 4, 2016 Page 5 of 6 [11] Wakefield has not met her burden of proving that the one and one-half year

sentence is inappropriate in light of nature of the offense and her character. 2

[12] Affirmed.

[13] Riley, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

2 Wakefield also contends that she “would have greatly benefit[t]ed from a lesser sentence in that she would have been afforded a greater opportunity to participate in drug treatment programs such as the Wabash Drug Court Program or through services offered by Wabash Community Corrections.” Appellant’s Br. at 15. Concluding that Wakefield’s sentence is not inappropriate, we do not address Wakefield’s contentions regarding drug treatment programs.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1602-CR-311| August 4, 2016 Page 6 of 6