Davis v. State
| Decision Date | 04 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 84A01–1605–CR–1214.,84A01–1605–CR–1214. |
| Citation | 66 N.E.3d 1006 (Table) |
| Parties | Mary DAVIS, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Cara Schaefer Wieneke, Wieneke Law Office, LLC, Brooklyn, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, J.T. Whitehead, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
[1] Mary Davis appeals her three-year sentence for operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class D felony, arguing that it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and her character. We disagree and affirm.
[2] In April 2014, Davis was seen driving erratically by police in Terre Haute and was arrested and charged with operating while intoxicated (OWI). Because she had been convicted on a separate OWI charge just three weeks earlier, the new charge was a Class D felony. See Ind.Code Ann. § 9–30–5–3 (West 2012). In October 2014, Davis and the State entered into an Adult Mental Health Court Deferral Agreement ("Deferral Agreement"), pursuant to which Davis pled guilty to the charge but was not sentenced and would have the charge dismissed if she completed the Adult Mental Health Program under the supervision of the Vigo County Mental Health Court.
[3] In January 2016, Davis was convicted in Clay County of three new crimes she committed in late 2015: domestic battery as a Level 6 felony, OWI as a Level 6 felony, and leaving the scene of an accident as a Class B misdemeanor. As a result, the State filed a petition to revoke the Deferral Agreement in the Vigo County case. The Vigo County court granted the motion, entered a judgment of conviction based on Davis' earlier guilty plea, and imposed the maximum sentence of three years in prison. The court ordered that Davis "be placed in Purposeful Incarceration in the Therapeutic Community" and said that it would consider a sentencing modification if Davis "successfully completes a Department of Correction Therapeutic Community." Appellant's App. p. 55.
[4] Davis now appeals.
[5] Davis asks us to reduce her sentence 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." 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). "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) ).
[6] Davis contends that her three-year sentence—the maximum allowed for a Class D felony, see Ind.Code Ann. § 35–50–2–7 (West 2012) —is inappropriate because her offense was an unremarkable OWI and because she is a product of her circumstances, not a person of poor character. We agree that there was nothing particularly egregious about Davis' offense—she made "unsafe lane movements," struck the curb, and failed to use her turn signal, and her BAC was .12 percent....
To continue reading
Request your trial