Teresa Thornton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 26, 2019
• Docket: 19A-CR-513
• 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 Jun 26 2019, 10:15 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 R. Patrick Magrath Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath LLP Attorney General Madison, Indiana Megan M. Smith Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Teresa Thornton, June 26, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-513 v. Appeal from the Ripley Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Plaintiff Jeffrey Sharp, Special Judge Trial Court Cause No. 69C01-1804-F5-18

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-513 | June 26, 2019 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] Teresa Thornton pled guilty to Level 5 felony dealing in a narcotic drug and

being a habitual offender, and the trial court sentenced her to ten years. She

now appeals, arguing that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of

the offense and her character. We disagree and affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] At the end of 2016, Thornton pled guilty to Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic

drug in Dearborn County. The court imposed a sentence of thirty years, with

six years to be served on home detention and twenty-four years suspended to

probation.

[3] On March 16, 2018, while Thornton was still serving that home-detention

sentence, Patty Napier told Indiana State Police troopers that Thornton had

sold her five oxycodone pills. Later that day, a search warrant was issued and

executed at Thornton’s home, and troopers found prescription oxycodone

bottles and pills. Troopers interviewed Thornton, and she admitted that she

trades pills for money or other pills.

[4] The State charged Thornton with Level 5 felony dealing in a schedule I, II, or

III controlled substance, Level 5 felony dealing in a narcotic drug, and Level 6

felony maintaining a common nuisance. The State also alleged that Thornton

is a habitual offender. Thereafter, the State and Thornton entered into a plea

agreement under which Thornton would plead guilty to Level 5 felony dealing

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-513 | June 26, 2019 Page 2 of 5 in a narcotic drug and the habitual-offender allegation in exchange for dismissal

of the remaining charges and eligibility to enroll in the Purposeful Incarceration

program while at the Indiana Department of Correction. Sentencing was left to

the discretion of the trial court.

[5] At the sentencing hearing, the trial court identified the following aggravators:

(1) Thornton has an extensive criminal history spanning thirty-three years,

including seven felony convictions, nine misdemeanor convictions, and six

probation violations; (2) Thornton committed the present offense while on

home detention for a similar, serious offense;1 and (3) Thornton was found to

be at a high risk to reoffend. As a mitigating factor, the court recognized that

Thornton pled guilty and took responsibility for her actions. The court found

that the aggravators outweigh the mitigator and sentenced Thornton to ten

years—six years plus a four-year habitual-offender enhancement. The court

stated that “[i]f [Thornton] successfully completes the Purposeful Incarceration

Program, according to the Plea Agreement, she is entitled to petition to have

that sentence modified and the State will remain silent on that modification.”

Tr. p. 55.

[6] Thornton now appeals her sentence.

1 At the sentencing hearing, the judge actually said that Thornton committed this offense “while on probation” for the Dearborn County conviction. Tr. p. 53. However, she had not yet been released to probation in that case when she committed this offense; she was still serving the executed (home detention) portion of her sentence. See Request for Home Detention Violation and Motion to Convert Hearing, 15D02- 1511-FA-000033 (Mar. 27, 2018).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-513 | June 26, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Discussion and Decision [7] Thornton contends that her ten-year sentence is inappropriate and asks us to

revise it pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which 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 of the crime, the damage done to

others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.”

Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing 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 have the burden of

persuading us that their sentences are inappropriate. Schaaf v. State, 54 N.E.3d

1041, 1044-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

[8] The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one to six years, with an advisory

sentence of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6. For a person convicted of a

Level 5 felony, the sentencing range for a habitual-offender enhancement is two

to six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(i)(2). As such, Thornton was facing a

maximum sentence of twelve years. The trial court sentenced her to ten years.

[9] Regarding the nature of her offense, we agree with Thornton that this is a

typical case of dealing drugs. However, Thornton’s decades-long criminal

history by itself more than justifies her ten-year sentence. According to the pre-

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-513 | June 26, 2019 Page 4 of 5 sentence investigation report, the accuracy of which Thornton does not

challenge, she has been convicted of seven prior felonies (operating a vehicle as

a habitual-traffic violator, battery resulting in serious bodily injury, habitual-

traffic violator after suspension for life, operating while intoxicated, habitual-

traffic offender, operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and dealing in a narcotic

drug) and nine misdemeanors and has six probation violations. Appellant’s

App. Vol. III pp. 5-10. Additionally, she was actively serving her home-

detention sentence for a similar dealing conviction when she committed the

present offense. She was also given eligibility to enroll in the Purposeful

Incarceration program, which if completed may result in a sentence

modification. Based on Thornton’s criminal history, the fact that she

committed the present offense while still serving the executed portion of her

sentence for a similar dealing conviction, the fact that she did not receive the

maximum sentence here, and the fact that she may get her sentence modified

down the road, we cannot say that her ten-year sentence is inappropriate.

[10] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-513 | June 26, 2019 Page 5 of 5