Trevor J. Laughman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 22, 2017
• Docket: 20A04-1608-CR-2003
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Mar 22 2017, 10:26 am

this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court 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 Peter D. Todd Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Elkhart, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Marjorie Lawyer-Smith Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Trevor J. Laughman, March 22, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A04-1608-CR-2003 v. Appeal from the Elkhart Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable George Appellee-Plaintiff. Biddlecome, Senior Judge Trial Court Cause No. 20D01-1505-F6-481

Barnes, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A04-1608-CR-2003| March 22, 2017 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] Trevor Laughman appeals the two-and-one-half year sentence imposed for

possession of cocaine, a Level 6 felony. We affirm.

Issue [2] Laughman raises one issue, which we restate as whether his sentence is

inappropriate.

Facts [3] On March 23, 2015, Elkhart Police Officer Dan Mayer was on patrol. Officer

Mayer saw a bicyclist, who was later identified as Laughman, traveling south in

the northbound lanes of the street. Lauhman was “coming head on with

traffic,” and there was no bicycle lane available. Tr. p. 83. Officer Mayer

initiated a traffic stop and learned Laughman had valid warrant from the

Elkhart County Sheriff’s Department. Officer Mayer arrested Laughman,

searched him, and discovered a small bag that contained a substance later

identified as crack cocaine.

[4] The State charged Laughman with possession of cocaine, a Level 6 felony. In

June 2016, a jury found Laughman guilty of the charge, and on August 5, 2016,

the trial court sentenced Laughman to two-and-one-half years in the

Department of Correction. Laughman now appeals his sentence.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A04-1608-CR-2003| March 22, 2017 Page 2 of 4 Analysis [5] Laughman argues that his maximum, executed sentence is inappropriate and

should be revised. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) allows us to revise an

appellant’s sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial

court’s decision, we find that sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of

the offense and character of the offender. We must give the trial court’s

decision due consideration because we “understand and recognize the unique

perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.” Rutherford v. State,

866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “The principal role of appellate

review should be to attempt to leaven the outliers . . . but not to achieve a

perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225

(Ind. 2008). An appellant bears the burden of persuading us her sentence is

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

[6] Regarding the nature of the offense, we acknowledge Laughman’s argument

that the circumstances surrounding his possession of cocaine were benign

compared to cases in which appellants have possessed the drug and

simultaneously been involved in violent crimes. However, Laughman’s

character—namely his lengthy criminal history—more than justifies his

sentence.

[7] Laughman’s criminal history is comprised of nineteen misdemeanor

convictions and two felony convictions. Laughman’s prior convictions include

driving offenses, alcohol-related offenses, drug convictions, robbery, and theft.

Laughman has a history of both alcohol and drug addictions and “has been Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A04-1608-CR-2003| March 22, 2017 Page 3 of 4 given at least three opportunities to address those addictions” in the

Department of Correction and in local programs. All of those efforts have

failed, and Laughman has “refused to successfully address his addictions.” Tr.

p. 155. In light of Laughman’s character, Laughman’s sentence is not

Conclusion [8] Laughman’s sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense

and his character. We affirm.

[9] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Robb, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A04-1608-CR-2003| March 22, 2017 Page 4 of 4