Tyler Johnson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 14, 2020
• Docket: 20A-CR-697
• 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 Aug 14 2020, 9:06 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Kimberly A. Jackson Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General Samuel J. Dayton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Tyler Johnson, August 14, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-697 v. Appeal from the Noble Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Michael J. Kramer, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 57C01-1809-F6-14

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-697 | August 14, 2020 Page 1 of 9 Case Summary [1] Tyler Johnson appeals the aggregate two-year sentence imposed by the trial

court after he was terminated from participation in a drug court program

following his guilty plea to four criminal offenses. He contends that the trial

court abused its discretion during sentencing and that his sentence is

inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character. Finding no

abuse of discretion, and further concluding that Johnson has not met his burden

to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On March 20, 2018, Indiana State Police Trooper Justin Snyder initiated a

traffic stop of a vehicle for committing the traffic offense of following too

closely. Trooper Snyder observed that the driver, Johnson, had bloodshot eyes

and poor manual dexterity. Trooper Snyder believed that Johnson was

intoxicated. Johnson admitted to having marijuana in the vehicle, and when

Trooper Snyder conducted a search of the vehicle, he located marijuana in a

grinder in the center console. Trooper Snyder also discovered a plastic bag

containing cocaine on Johnson’s person. Approximately two hours after the

traffic stop, Johnson tested positive for both cannabinoid and cocaine.

[3] The State subsequently charged Johnson with level 6 felony possession of

cocaine, class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, class C misdemeanor

operating a vehicle with a schedule I or II controlled substance or its metabolite

in the body, and class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. On October

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-697 | August 14, 2020 Page 2 of 9 10, 2018, Johnson pled guilty to all four charges. In addition to accepting his

plea agreement, the trial court also accepted Johnson’s agreement to participate

in the Noble County Problem-Solving Court (the Drug Court). Johnson

specifically agreed to abide by the conditions of the Drug Court program. The

trial court ordered that sentencing was continued “pending participation in

Drug Court.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 48.

[4] Thereafter, multiple times in 2018, 2019, and 2020, following hearings, the

Drug Court found that Johnson had violated the terms of his participation

agreement. The violations included failing to attend required support group

meetings, operating a vehicle without a license, testing positive for marijuana,

possessing contraband, and violating a no-contact order. On February 19,

2020, the Noble County Probation Department filed a report recommending

that Johnson be terminated from participation in the Drug Court program. The

Drug Court terminated Johnson from participation in the program that same

day.

[5] Accordingly, on March 9, 2020, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. The

trial court sentenced Johnson to two years for possession of cocaine, 180 days

for possession of marijuana, sixty days for operating a vehicle with a schedule I

or II controlled substance or its metabolite in the body, and sixty days for

possession of paraphernalia, all to be served concurrently. This appeal ensued.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-697 | August 14, 2020 Page 3 of 9 Section 1 – The trial court did not abuse its discretion during sentencing. [6] Johnson first asserts that the trial court abused its discretion during sentencing.

Specifically, he challenges the trial court’s treatment of aggravating and

mitigating factors. Sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the

trial court, and as long as a sentence is within the statutory range, it is subject to

review only for an abuse of discretion. 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

where the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts

and circumstances before it, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions

to be drawn therefrom. Sloan v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1018, 1026 (Ind. Ct. App.

2014). When reviewing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances identified

by the trial court in its sentencing statement, we will remand only if “the record

does not support the reasons, or the sentencing statement omits reasons that are

clearly supported by the record, and advanced for consideration, or the reasons

given are improper as a matter of law.” Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 490-91.

[7] During sentencing, the trial court found as an aggravating factor that Johnson

lacked “the desire to comply with any of the terms” of the Drug Court program.

Tr. Vol. 2 at 192. Johnson suggests that this finding is unsupported by the

record and constitutes an abuse of discretion. Johnson concedes that he indeed

violated the rules of the Drug Court program multiple times, but he opines that

his “only significant rule[-]breaking occurred near the end of his Drug Court

Participation,” and the trial court should have found that he complied with the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-697 | August 14, 2020 Page 4 of 9 rules “most” of the time. Appellant’s Br. at 12. It is neither Johnson’s

prerogative nor ours to dictate the significance attached by the trial court to one

type of rule-breaking over another. The record unquestionably supports the

trial court’s finding that Johnson’s multiple violations demonstrated a lack of

desire to comply with the terms of the Drug Court program, and Johnson’s

argument to the contrary is a nonstarter. We find no abuse of discretion in this

regard.

[8] Johnson next argues that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to

identify his guilty plea as a mitigating factor. A defendant who alleges that the

trial court failed to identify a mitigating factor has the burden to establish that

the proffered factor is both significant and “clearly supported by the record.”

Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 493. We will not remand for reconsideration of

alleged mitigating factors that have debatable nature, weight, and significance.

Newsome v. State, 797 N.E.2d 293, 301 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied (2004).

It is well settled that a guilty plea “is not necessarily a mitigating factor where

the defendant receives a substantial benefit from the plea or where evidence

against the defendant is so strong that the decision to plead guilty is merely

pragmatic.” Amalfitano v. State, 956 N.E.2d 208, 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans.

denied (2012).

[9] Here, the evidence against Johnson was overwhelming, and, in pleading guilty

to his crimes, Johnson received the substantial benefit of being able to

participate in the Drug Court program rather than being incarcerated.

Johnson’s decision to plead guilty was merely pragmatic, and his multiple

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-697 | August 14, 2020 Page 5 of 9 violations of the Drug Court program rules clearly overshadow any initial

acceptance of responsibility demonstrated by his guilty plea. The trial court did

not abuse its discretion in not finding his guilty plea to be a significant

mitigating factor, and Johnson has failed to establish that the trial court abused

its discretion.

Section 2 – Johnson has not met his burden to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate. [10] Johnson requests that we reduce his sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate

Rule 7(B), which provides that we may revise a sentence authorized by statute

if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find that the sentence

“is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the

offender.” The defendant bears the burden to persuade this Court that his or her

sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate

sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court’s judgment “should

receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind.

2008). The principal role of appellate review is to attempt to “leaven the

outliers.” Id. at 1225. Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate at the end

of the day turns on “our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of

the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other facts that come to light

in a given case.” Id. at 1224. “The question under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not

whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether

the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 344

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-697 | August 14, 2020 Page 6 of 9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Appellate review “should focus on the forest—the

aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number

of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Cardwell, 895

N.E.2d at 1225.

[11] Regarding the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting point

that the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime

committed. Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014). Johnson was

convicted of one level 6 felony, one class B misdemeanor, and two class C

misdemeanors. The sentencing range for a level 6 felony is between “six (6)

months and two and one-half (2½) years, with the advisory sentence being one

(1) year.” Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). A person who commits a class B

misdemeanor “shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than one

hundred eighty (180) days[.]” Ind. Code § 35-50-3-3. A person who commits a

class C misdemeanor “shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than

sixty (60) days[.]” Ind. Code § 35-50-3-4. The trial court here imposed a two-

year aggregate sentence, which was well below the maximum allowable

sentence for all four crimes.

[12] When reviewing the nature of the offense, this Court considers “the details and

circumstances of the commission of the offense.” Washington v. State, 940

N.E.2d 1220, 1222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. Johnson simply states

that his offenses were “unremarkable,” but he makes no argument as to why he

feels that the less-than-maximum sentence imposed here was still “unduly

harsh.” Appellant’s Br. at 15. The record establishes that Johnson dangerously Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-697 | August 14, 2020 Page 7 of 9 operated a vehicle with both cannabinoid and cocaine in his system, and he was

found in possession of numerous items of contraband. The details and

circumstances of Johnson’s offenses do not persuade us that a sentence

reduction is warranted.

[13] Turning to Johnson’s character, we note that the character of the offender is

found in what we learn of his life and conduct. Croy v. State, 953 N.E.2d 660,

664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Included in that assessment is a review of an

offender’s criminal history. Garcia v. State, 47 N.E.3d 1249, 1251 (Ind. Ct. App.

2015), trans. denied (2016). Johnson notes that he only has one prior

misdemeanor conviction for carrying a handgun without a license. He further

emphasizes that he has generally maintained steady employment and helped

take care of his family. We do not discount any of these things. Nevertheless,

Johnson’s recent behavior in the Drug Court program does not reflect favorably

on his character. As noted by the State, Johnson violated the rules of that

program seven times in just sixteen months. The trial court gave Johnson the

opportunity for rehabilitation outside a jail cell, and Johnson essentially

thumbed his nose at the trial court’s leniency. Johnson has not convinced us

that his aggregate sentence is inappropriate in light of his character.

[14] In sum, the trial court did not abuse its discretion during sentencing, and

Johnson has not met his burden to demonstrate that his sentence is

inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses or his character.

Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-697 | August 14, 2020 Page 8 of 9 [15] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-697 | August 14, 2020 Page 9 of 9