Pauley v. State, 22A-CR-1039

Citation22A-CR-1039
Case DateSeptember 27, 2022
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Jeremy Pauley, Appellant-Defendant,
v.

State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

No. 22A-CR-1039

Court of Appeals of Indiana

September 27, 2022


Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

Appeal from the Cass Circuit Court The Honorable Stephen R. Kitts, II, Judge Trial Court Cause Nos. 09C01-2001-F6-27 09C01-2001-F2-4 09C01-1912-F4-13

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Mark K. Leeman Leeman Law Office Logansport, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana

Nicole D. Wiggins Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Bradford, Chief Judge

1

Case Summary

[¶1] Following three separate arrests, Jeremy Pauley was charged with multiple crimes under three separate cause numbers. He subsequently pled guilty, under two of the cause numbers, to Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine, two counts of Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and two counts of Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges, including all of the charges listed in the third cause number. After accepting Pauley's guilty plea, the trial court sentenced Pauley to an aggregate twenty-five and one-half-year sentence. Pauley challenges an eight-year portion of his overall sentence on appeal, arguing both that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him and that the eightyear portion of his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[¶2] On December 11, 2019, Pauley was observed to have committed a traffic infraction and was stopped by police. At the time, he was found to be in possession of over thirteen grams of methamphetamine, a marijuana cigarette, and a smoking device. Two days later, on December 13, 2019, Pauley was charged under cause number 09C01-1912-F4-13 ("Cause No. F4-13") with Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine, Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

2

[¶3] On January 24, 2020, Pauley was again stopped by police after police observed him commit another traffic infraction. He was found to be in possession of both methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. On January 27, 2020, Pauley was charged under cause number 09D01-2001-F6-27 ("Cause No. F6-27") with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

[¶4] On January 29, 2020, Pauley was again stopped by police, this time for speeding. Pauley was found to be in possession of over thirty-four grams of methamphetamine, approximately eighteen grams of marijuana, and a glass smoking device. The next day, Pauley was charged under cause number 09C01-2001-F2-4 ("Cause No. F2-4") with Level 2 felony dealing methamphetamine, Level 3 felony possession of methamphetamine, Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

[¶5] On February 17, 2022, Pauley pled guilty to Level 2 felony dealing methamphetamine, Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia in Cause No. F2-4 and Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine, Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia in Cause No. F4-13. In exchange for Pauley's guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges in both Cause Nos. F2-4 and F4-13 and all of the charges in Cause No. F6-27. On April 7, 2022, the trial court sentenced Pauley to seventeen and one-half years for the Level 2 felony conviction in Cause No. F2-4 and eight years for the Level 4 felony conviction in Cause No. F4-13.[1]

3

The trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutively, for a total aggregate sentence of twenty-five and one-half years.

Discussion and Decision

[¶6] "A person who commits a Level 2 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between ten (10) and thirty (30) years, with the advisory sentence being seventeen and one-half (17%) years." Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5. "A person who commits a Level 4 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term between two (2) and twelve (12) years, with the advisory sentence being six (6) years." Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5. On appeal, Pauley challenges the eight-year sentence imposed by the trial court in Cause No. F4-13, arguing both that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him and that the eight-year sentence is inappropriate.[2] Specifically, Pauley contends that "[t]he aggravated sentence in [Cause No.] F4-13 is against the logic and the effect of the facts in this case and contrary to the nature of the offense and Pauley's character. This Court should enter a six-year advisory sentence on the [L]evel 4 felony in [Cause No.] F4-13." Appellant's Br. p. 11.

4

A. Abuse of Discretion

[¶7] Sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and are reviewed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), modified on other grounds on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). "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. (quotation omitted).

We review for an abuse of discretion the court's finding of aggravators and mitigators to justify a sentence, but we cannot review the relative weight assigned to those factors. 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
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT