Tracy S. Coop v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 3, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-192
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jul 03 2018, 10:45 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Christopher L. Clerc Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Columbus, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Michael Gene Worden Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Tracy S. Coop, July 3, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-192 v. Appeal from the Bartholomew Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Kelly S. Benjamin, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 03C01-1705-F6-2560

Altice, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-192 | July 3, 2018 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary

[1] Following a guilty plea, Tracy Coop was convicted of Level 6 Felony

possession of methamphetamine and sentenced to 730 days. On appeal, Coop

argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to consider her

cooperation with police and guilty plea as significant mitigating factors.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On the April 6, 2017, Columbus Police Department Officer Drake Maddix

initiated a traffic stop on a vehicle operating without functioning headlights or

tail lights. Coop was a passenger in the vehicle and was sitting in the front

passenger seat. Officer Maddix recognized Coop from prior encounters, and

due to his knowledge of her drug history, he requested a K-9 unit. Officer

Maddix questioned Coop about the presence of drugs in the car, but Coop

denied having any knowledge of drugs inside the vehicle. Shortly thereafter,

Officer Branch Schrader and his K-9 dog Argo arrived on the scene. Argo

alerted on the car, indicating that there may be narcotics inside.

[4] During a subsequent search of the vehicle, the officers located a white purse

directly below Coop’s front passenger seat. Inside the purse the officers found a

blue zipper pouch that contained an empty syringe, a white crystal substance in

a clear bag, a white pill, and a digital scale with “TC” on the back of it.

Appellant’s Appendix Vol. II at 53. Coop again denied knowing anything about

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-192 | July 3, 2018 Page 2 of 5 the items found in the purse or the blue zippered pouch. Coop was arrested for

possession of narcotics and paraphernalia. A field test on the white crystal

substance was positive for methamphetamine. Upon further questioning, Coop

admitted that the substance was methamphetamine.

[5] The State charged Coop with Count I, Level 6 Felony possession of

methamphetamine, and Count II, Level 6 Felony possession of a syringe.

Pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement, Coop pled guilty to Count I and the

State agreed to dismiss Count II. The trial court held a sentencing hearing on

December 14, 2017. The court found several aggravating circumstances but no

mitigating circumstances and sentenced Coop to 730 days in jail. Coop now

appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

Discussion & Decision

[6] Sentencing decisions are within the discretion of the trial court. Anglemyer v.

State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218. An

abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is “clearly against the logic and effect

of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and

actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Id. One of the ways in which a trial

may abuse its sentencing discretion is where the trial court’s sentencing

statement omits reasons that are clearly supported by the record and advanced

for consideration. McSchooler v. State, 15 N.E.3d 678, 684 (Ind. Ct. App 2014).

To establish an abuse of discretion, the defendant must demonstrate that the

mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-192 | July 3, 2018 Page 3 of 5 Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d 482 at 493. Here, Coop argues that the trial court

abused its sentencing discretion by failing to consider her guilty plea and her

cooperation with the police as mitigating factors.

[7] Coop has not established that her cooperation is a significant mitigating factor.

Indeed, the record shows that Coop lied to the police twice about her

knowledge of the presence of drugs. She only cooperated after her arrest and

after the field test was positive for methamphetamine. The facts demonstrate

that there was no real cooperation with the police.

[8] Coop also argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it did not

consider her guilty plea as a mitigating factor. Even though Coop did not raise

her guilty plea as a mitigating factor before the sentencing court, this does not

prevent her from raising the issue for the first time on appeal. Anglemyer v. State,

875 N.E.2d 218, 220 (Ind. 2007) opinion on reh’g. A guilty plea is deserving of

some mitigating weight; however, the significance of a guilty plea varies from

case to case. Id. A guilty plea is not significantly mitigating where, for

example, it fails to evince acceptance of responsibility or where the defendant

receives a substantial benefit, including dismissal of other charges, in return for

the plea. Id. at 221. A plea fails to demonstrate acceptance of responsibility

where the decision to plead was “more likely the result of pragmatism than

acceptance of responsibility and remorse.” Id.

[9] Coop’s plea was nothing more than a pragmatic decision based on the

overwhelming evidence of her guilt. The State’s evidence showed that a purse

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-192 | July 3, 2018 Page 4 of 5 found directly below the front passenger seat where Coop was sitting contained

a white crystal substance, syringe, and a scale with Coop’s initials. After a field

test was positive for methamphetamine, Coop admitted to the illegal nature of

the substance. In addition, Coop received a benefit from her guilty plea in that

a Level 6 Felony charge was dismissed. The trial court did not abuse its

discretion in sentencing Coop.

[10] Judgment affirmed.

Najam, J. and Robb, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-192 | July 3, 2018 Page 5 of 5