Linville v. State
Decision Date | 22 March 2019 |
Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-983 |
Citation | 120 N.E.3d 648 |
Parties | Steven LINVILLE, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorney for Appellant: Leanna Weissmann, Lawrenceburg, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Tyler G. Banks, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] Steven Linville appeals following his convictions of three counts of Level 6 felony theft1 and three counts of Level 6 felony making or delivering a false sales document.2 He argues his fifteen-year sentence is inappropriate and the order that he pay $ 98,310.30 in restitution is "obvious error." (Br. of Appellant at 12.) We affirm in part, and we reverse and remand in part.
[2] For about sixteen years, Linville was employed by Laughery Valley AG (hereinafter, "Laughery Valley"). On behalf of Laughery Valley, Linville delivered fuel, oil, washer fluid, and antifreeze to about four hundred customers. In 2015, Laughery Valley began to suspect that Linville had been issuing false receipts to customers so that he could steal money from the payments due to Laughery Valley. When Laughery Valley confronted Linville, he admitted he took the money.
[3] On January 29, 2016, the State filed thirty-four counts against Linville for events occurring on seventeen separate dates between October 6, 2014, and October 21, 2015. Seventeen of the counts alleged Linville committed Level 6 felony theft because he (Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30.) Seventeen other counts alleged Linville, on the same dates as the seventeen thefts, "delivered a false receipt to Bob's Service Station for property belonging to Laughery Valley AG." (Id. at 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47.)
[4] On October 23, 2017, Linville entered an agreement whereby he would plead guilty to three counts of Level 6 felony theft3 and three counts of Level 6 felony delivering a false sales document,4 in exchange for the State dismissing the remaining twenty-eight counts. The agreement left the sentence for each count to the Court's discretion but required all counts be served consecutively. Finally, the agreement provided: (Id. at 119.)
[5] On October 24, 2017, the trial court accepted that agreement, entered those six convictions, and ordered the production of a presentence investigation report. The victim impact statement filed by Laughery Valley indicated that, between May of 2011 and November of 2015, Linville "stole at least $ 369,426.59 worth of sales proceeds through his scheme." (Id . at 127.) At sentencing, Linville argued the court could not order him to pay more than $ 35,729.00, based on the six counts to which Linville pled guilty. The trial court entered lengthy findings in support of its sentencing decision:
(App. at 129-30 (emphases in original) (formatting altered).) The trial court found the aggravators "significantly outweigh" the mitigators, (id. at 130), and imposed a fifteen-year sentence with three years suspended to probation. The court also ordered Linville to "pay restitution to Laughery Valley ... in the amount of $ 98,310.30." (Id. at 131.)
[6] Linville then filed a motion to correct error that challenged both his sentence and the restitution order. He argued the court "relied on aggravating circumstances that are not supported by the record or are improper as a matter of law." (Id. at 138.) As to restitution, Linville asserted the court's ruling was (Id. ) The trial court denied Linville's motion to correct error in a lengthy order that will be quoted where relevant to the issues raised on appeal.
[7] Linville appeals from the denial of his motion to correct error. We generally review the trial court's grant or denial of a motion to correct error for an abuse of the trial court's discretion. State v. Johnston , 65 N.E.3d 1061, 1062 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). An abuse of discretion has occurred if the trial court's 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." State v. Collier , 61 N.E.3d 265, 268 (Ind. 2016) (quoting McElfresh v. State , 51 N.E.3d 103, 107 (Ind. 2016) ). If, however, the issues raised on appeal are pure questions of law, we review those issues de novo . Johnston , 65 N.E.3d at 1062.
[8] Linville first argues his fifteen-year sentence is inappropriate. Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), 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." As we conduct our review, we give "substantial deference" to the decision of the trial court. Knapp v. State , 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014), cert....
To continue reading
Request your trial