Shuminoff v. State

• Decision Date: 15 December 2015
• Docket Number: No. 89A01–1505–CR–502.,89A01–1505–CR–502.
• Citation: 43 N.E.3d 274 (Table)
• Parties: Michael SHUMINOFF, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

43 N.E.3d 274 (Table)

Michael SHUMINOFF, Appellant–Defendant
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.

No. 89A01–1505–CR–502.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Dec. 15, 2015.

J. Clayton Miller, Jordan Law, LLC, Richmond, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Karl Scharnberg, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

RILEY, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant–Defendant, Michael Shuminoff (Shuminoff), appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to four Counts of burglary, Class C felonies, Ind.Code § 35–43–2–1 (2013), and his adjudication as an habitual offender, I.C. § 35–50–2–8.

[2] We affirm.

ISSUE

[3] Shuminoff raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it determined that the four burglaries did not constitute a single episode of criminal conduct for purposes of sentencing.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] Over a span of nineteen days, Shuminoff committed four burglaries in three different businesses in Richmond, Indiana. On May 29, 2012, Shuminoff broke into and entered into the Primex Plastics Plant, where he stole a security camera and damaged two vending machines to obtain the money that was inside. Four days later, on June 2, 2012, Shuminoff broke into and entered Mathew International Casket, where he stole money out of various vending machines. Thereafter, on June 10, 2012, Shuminoff again broke into and entered Primex Plastics Plant where he destroyed two vending machines to steal the money. Lastly, on June 17, 2012, police officers were dispatched to the Mosey Manufacturing Plant on a report that “an unknown individual had been in the break room of the plant and that the change machine had been shoved back into the wall and had a screwdriver jammed into it as well as the coffee machine had been shoved over.” (Appellant's App. p. 15). The officers located Shuminoff in a small office inside Mosey Manufacturing Plant. He admitted to having committed all four burglaries.

[5] On June 19, 2012, the State filed an Information charging Shuminoff with four Counts of burglary, Class C felonies, as well as an Information for an habitual offender enhancement. On February 5, 2015, Shuminoff entered an open plea as to the four burglary Counts and the habitual offender charge. On March 4, 2015, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. During the hearing, Shuminoff argued that the four burglaries constituted a single episode of criminal conduct. The trial court ordered both parties to brief “as to what exactly is an episode and why [Shuminoff] fits it or why his doesn't fit it.” (Transcript p. 29). On April 27, 2015, the trial court resumed the sentencing hearing and found that the burglaries were not “a connected series of offenses that are closely connected in time, place, and circumstance.” (Tr. p. 35). Accordingly, the trial court sentenced Shuminoff to seven years on each Count with no time suspended, with Counts I, II, and III to run consecutively, and Count IV to run concurrently with Counts I through III. Count I was enhanced by ten years for the habitual offender adjudication. In sum, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of thirty-one years with no time suspended.

[6] Shuminoff now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

[7] Shuminoff contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering consecutive sentences after finding that the four burglaries did not constitute a single episode of criminal conduct because they were not closely connected in time, place, and circumstance.

[8] In general, a trial court cannot order consecutive sentences in the absence of...