Thomas v. State
| Decision Date | 17 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22A-CR-2086 |
| Parties | Matthew Lee Thomas, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Vanderburgh Superior Court The Hon. Robert J Pigman, Judge Trial Court Cause Nos. 82D03-2102-F1-918 82D03-1901-F6-485 82D03-1903-F6-1934
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Matthew J. McGovern Fishers, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Evan Matthew Comer Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
[¶1] Matthew Thomas pled guilty to two counts of Level 1 felony child molesting, Level 1 felony attempted child molesting, two counts of Level 4 felony child molesting, Level 4 felony child exploitation, Level 5 felony possession of child pornography, Level 6 felony performing sexual conduct in the presence of a minor, two counts of Level 6 felony operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator ("HTV"), Level 6 felony failure to appear, and Class A misdemeanor marijuana possession, in addition to admitting that he was a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced Thomas to a total of thirty-two years and 360 days of incarceration. Thomas argues that his sentence in inappropriately harsh in light of the nature of his offenses and his character, while the State argues that the sentence is inappropriately lenient. Because we find that Thomas's sentence is neither inappropriately harsh nor inappropriately lenient, we affirm.
[¶2] On January 16, 2019, Thomas was driving in Evansville when he was stopped for failing to signal a turn. Thomas exited his vehicle and informed the officer that he did not have a driver's license and was an HTV. Thomas was arrested and charged with two counts of Level 6 felony operating a vehicle as an HTV in cause number 82D03-1901-F6-485 ("Cause No. 485"). Approximately two months later, Thomas was stopped again after a police officer recognized his car. The officer knew that Thomas had an outstanding arrest warrant, and a check confirmed that Thomas was the owner of the vehicle and an HTV. The officer initiated a traffic stop and Thomas was arrested; while being transported to jail, Thomas informed police that he was in possession of marijuana. The State charged Thomas in cause number 82D03-1903-F6-1934 ("Cause No. 1934") with Level 6 felony operating as an HTV, Level 6 felony failure to appear, and Class A misdemeanor marijuana possession, in addition to an allegation that Thomas was a habitual offender.
[¶3] Meanwhile, Thomas was dating Shanay Cawthorne, with whom he had a son. Cawthorne lived with Thomas and her three other children at three different Evansville residences over the course of their relationship, including on East Louisiana, Garfield, and Dresden Streets. On February 18, 2021, while Thomas was on pretrial release in Cause Nos. 485 and 1935, Cawthorne discovered a series of video recordings on his mobile telephone depicting Thomas engaging in multiple sex acts with her daughter, V.E., who was then only ten years old. The first video showed V.E. performing oral sex on Thomas on the couch in the living room at the family's Dresden Street home. The second depicted V.E., who appeared to be wearing no clothes below her waist, with her legs positioned on the couch and Thomas, who was wearing no pants, "between her legs." Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 228. The third video showed V.E., again with no clothes on below her waist, positioned on her hands and knees and "rocking back and forth against Thomas[,]" who also was wearing no pants. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 229.
[¶4] When Cawthorne confronted Thomas about the videos, he began to cry, apologized, and asked her to forgive him. Thomas admitted that he had begun molesting V.E. the previous December. When Cawthorne asked V.E. about the molestation, V.E. told her that Thomas had sexually assaulted her "multiple times" and "not just in the house on Dresden." Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 229. V.E. told Cawthorne that Thomas had "made her do it[,]" told her that he would be "mad" at her if she told anyone, and threatened that he "wouldn't speak to her mother or little brother if she told." Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 229.
[¶5] V.E. underwent a forensic interview, during which she disclosed numerous instances of molestation by Thomas at the family's homes on Dresden, East Louisiana, and Garfield Streets. V.E. described how Thomas had once approached her while Cawthorne was in the shower and her brothers were upstairs and had told her to come with him to the couch. Thomas had removed his pants and exposed his penis to V.E., which she described as having been "'black, brown and hairy'" and "'old and wrinkly[.]'" Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 229. Thomas had forced V.E. to "go up and down with her mouth on his private part until 'white stuff came out[.]'" Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 229. V.E. reported having spit Thomas's ejaculate into the trash. V.E. also told the forensic interviewer that, on another occasion, Thomas had removed her pants and, while laying on top of her, "put his private part in her butt cheeks[.]" Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 229. V.E. also reported that once, when she was living at the Garfield Street residence, Thomas had begun rubbing her vagina with his fingers while he touched his penis with his other hand. V.E. told her interviewer that this had "hurt because his nails were sharp." Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 229.
[¶6] Thomas was charged in cause number 82D03-2102-F1-918 ("Cause No. 918") with two counts of Level 1 felony child molesting, Level 1 felony attempted child molesting, two counts of Level 4 felony child molesting, Level 4 felony child exploitation, Level 5 felony possession of child pornography, and Level 6 felony performing sexual conduct in the presence of a minor. On April 19, 2022, Thomas entered open pleas of guilty for each of the counts charged in Cause Nos. 918, 485, and 1934. After being advised of his rights by the trial court, Thomas admitted to the factual allegations, and the trial court accepted Thomas's pleas.
[¶7] Thomas's sentencing hearing was held on June 17, 2022. The presentence investigation report ("PSI") submitted by the Probation Department recommended that Thomas be sentenced to thirty-five years for each of his Level 1 felony convictions, to be enhanced by ten years, plus ten years each for his Level 4 felony convictions, four years for his Level 5 felony conviction, and 547 days each for his Level 6 felony convictions. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 88. The PSI did not include a recommendation regarding whether any sentences should be served consecutively. The State called Cawthorne as its only witness. Cawthorne testified that she had permitted V.E. to miss the sentencing hearing because she "could just tell that every given second was just heartbreaking for her knowing that she was going to come in this room and see Matthew Thomas again[.]" Tr. Vol. II p. 22. Cawthorne opined that "thirty years is not enough" for Thomas's sentence and informed the court that V.E. had enrolled in counseling. Tr. Vol. II p. 22. Both Thomas and the State referred to statements made by the trial court wherein the judge had previously suggested that he thought a thirty-year sentence was appropriate for Cause No. 918. Thomas argued that the "previously discussed sentence is appropriate" based on his mental-health history and his criminal record. Tr. Vol. II p. 27. The State responded that, "I know the Court has said that the Court would sentence him to thirty years but I think more is certainly appropriate" and requested that the trial court issue a sentence "significantly more than thirty years" to be served executed in its entirety at the Department of Correction. Tr. Vol. II p. 29.
[¶8] The trial court entered judgment of conviction on all counts except one count of operating as a HTV in Cause No. 485 and ordered that Thomas's base sentences be an aggregate term of twenty years in Cause No. 918, an aggregate term of one year and 180 days in Cause No. 485, and an aggregate term of one year and 180 days in Cause No. 1934. By virtue of Thomas's status as a habitual offender, the trial court ordered the sentence for one of the Level 1 felony child-molesting convictions in Cause No. 918 be enhanced by ten years and ordered a separate two-year enhancement for Cause No. 1934, to be served concurrently with the enhancement in Cause No. 918. In its written sentencing order, the court clarified that it had determined that the "standard sentence in all counts" was appropriate after finding Thomas's criminal history as an aggravating circumstance and Thomas's guilty plea and history of mental illness as mitigating circumstances. All told, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of thirty-two years and 360 days of incarceration.[1]
[¶9] Thomas argues that, in light of the nature of his offenses and his character, his nearly-thirty-three-year executed sentence is inappropriately harsh, while the State argues that his sentence is inappropriately lenient. We "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." Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). "Although appellate review of sentences must give due consideration to the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial