Timothy M. Snapp v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 17, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-604
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Aug 17 2018, 9:50 am the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Tonja V. Kinder Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Monroe County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana Bloomington, Indiana George P. Sherman Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Timothy M. Snapp, August 17, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-604 v. Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Marc R. Kellams, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 53C05-1709-F5-912

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-604 | August 17, 2018 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] On January 3, 2018, Timothy Snapp pled guilty to Level 5 felony dealing in

methamphetamine. Consistent with the terms of Snapp’s guilty plea, the trial

court sentenced Snapp to a five-year term of imprisonment. Snapp contends

that his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] While conducting surveillance for an on-going narcotics investigation on

August 30, 2017, Bloomington police officers observed Snapp walk out of an

apartment and hand something in a clear plastic bag to Tina Hunter. The

police observed that Snapp then traveled with Hunter to an apartment located

on West Dodds Street. Snapp was arrested after police executed a search

warrant on the West Dodds Street apartment and found methamphetamine.

Hunter subsequently informed the officers that she had obtained

methamphetamine from Snapp earlier that evening and that any

methamphetamine found in the apartment would have come from Snapp.

[3] On September 1, 2017, the State charged Snapp with Level 5 felony dealing in

methamphetamine. Snapp pled guilty on January 3, 2018. In exchange for

Snapp’s guilty plea, the State agreed that (1) Snapp’s sentence would be capped

at five years, (2) it would not seek an enhancement in the level of felony charge,

and (3) it would move to dismiss a charge in an unrelated cause number. The

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-604 | August 17, 2018 Page 2 of 5 trial court accepted Snapp’s guilty plea and, on February 26, 2018, sentenced

Snapp to a five-year term of incarceration.

Discussion and Decision [4] Snapp contends that his five-year sentence is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate

Rule 7(B) provides that “The 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.” In analyzing such claims, we “‘concentrate less on comparing

the facts of [the case at issue] to others, whether real or hypothetical, and more

on focusing on the nature, extent, and depravity of the offense for which the

defendant is being sentenced, and what it reveals about the defendant’s

character.’” Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting

Brown v. State, 760 N.E.2d 243, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied). The

defendant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate.

Sanchez v. State, 891 N.E.2d 174, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[5] In challenging his sentence, Snapp argues that his maximum five-year sentence

is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense. We note that while the

five-year sentence was the maximum permissible sentence under the terms of

his plea agreement, it is not the maximum sentence that Snapp could have

received had he gone to trial. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b) (providing that the

statutory range for a sentence for a Level 5 felony is between one year and six

years). Snapp also attempts to downplay the seriousness of his offense by

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-604 | August 17, 2018 Page 3 of 5 arguing that his offense was not as serious as some of the other offenses that are

classified as Level 5 felonies. Regardless of what other crimes might be

classified as Level 5 felonies, the General Assembly has determined that dealing

in methamphetamine is a serious offense warranting Level 5 felony

classification. Further, the record shows that Snapp has long engaged in drug

possession and dealing.

[6] As for Snapp’s character, since 1979, he has amassed a significant criminal

history, which includes at least fifteen criminal convictions and numerous other

arrests. Although Snapp’s record of arrests by itself is not evidence of his

criminal history, “it is appropriate to consider such a record as a poor reflection

on [Snapp’s] character, because it may reveal that he … has not been deterred

even after having been subjected to the police authority of the State.” Rutherford

v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Cotto v. State, 829

N.E.2d 520, 526 (Ind. 2005)). Snapp has also committed prior probation

violations.

[7] The instant conviction is Snapp’s fifth felony conviction for either possessing or

selling methamphetamine since 2011. An additional charge of possession of

methamphetamine was dismissed pursuant to the terms of Snapp’s plea

agreement in this case. Many of Snapp’s other arrests and convictions stem

from either drug possession or dealing. In addition, Snapp was found to be a

high risk to reoffend.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-604 | August 17, 2018 Page 4 of 5 [8] Snapp argues that it reflects well on his character that he has recently

committed to reforming his behavior. Snapp points to the fact that he had been

accepted for inpatient treatment at the Amethyst House following his release

from incarceration and his willingness to admit that he had been battling

substance-abuse issues. Snapp also points to the fact that he continues to

maintain positive relationships with past employers and has eagerly participated

in multiple educational opportunities while incarcerated. While we applaud

Snapp’s commitment to improving himself, this somewhat recent commitment

to self-improvement does not outweigh Snapp’s extensive pattern of criminal

behavior. Snapp has failed to convince us that his five-year sentence is

inappropriate.

[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-604 | August 17, 2018 Page 5 of 5