CARCAMO v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Kelvin Carcamo (“Carcamo”) pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person ¹ as a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to 365 days with 136 days executed as time served and the remaining 229 days suspended to probation. On appeal, Carcamo argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On November 26, 2022, around 11:30 p.m., Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer James Crawford (“Officer Crawford”) observed a black Toyota Corolla (“the car”) stopped on Lafayette Road with multiple vehicles behind it. The car pulled into a nearby parking lot and then pulled back onto the road, coming to a stop with its front wheels in the travel lane of Lafayette Road. Officer Crawford noticed the car was missing a front tire and was driving on the rim. He initiated a traffic stop, and the car pulled over onto a sidewalk.

[3] Officer Crawford made contact with the driver of the car and identified him as Carcamo. Officer Crawford smelled alcohol on Carcamo's breath and observed that he had bloodshot, glassy eyes. Carcamo fumbled with his wallet and attempted to hand Officer Crawford a card that was not identification. When asked to exit the vehicle, Carcamo staggered and needed assistance to avoid falling. Carcamo spoke in Spanish, and his speech was slurred. A breathalyzer test registered Carcamo's blood alcohol content at 0.268%, which was more than three times the legal limit. He was placed under arrest, and his license was suspended.

[4] On December 5, 2022, the State charged Carcamo with Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an ACE of 0.15 or more, and Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Carcamo failed to appear for a pretrial hearing on February 27, 2023, resulting in an arrest warrant being issued. On December 3, 2023, after nearly ten months, Carcamo was arrested in Boone County for offenses involving operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

[5] On February 12, 2024, Carcamo pleaded guilty to all of his charges in the instant cause. The trial court entered judgment of conviction for only Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person. At sentencing, it was noted that Carcamo had a pending case in Boone County for the same offense as the present case with an active arrest warrant. Carcamo testified that he was twenty-three years old at the time of sentencing and had a four-month-old daughter. He also stated that he had no prior criminal convictions and was not a U.S. citizen. The trial court sentenced Carcamo to 365 days, with 136 days executed, which amounted to time served, and 229 days suspended to probation. The trial court also ordered substance abuse treatment as a condition of probation. Carcamo now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] The Indiana Constitution authorizes appellate review and revision of a trial court's sentencing decision. See Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6; Jackson v. State, 145 N.E.3d 783, 784 (Ind. 2020). “That authority is implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), which permits an appellate court to revise a sentence if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the sentence is found to be inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 159 (Ind. 2019).

[7] Our review under Appellate Rule 7(B) focuses on “the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). We generally defer to the trial court's sentencing decision, and our goal is to determine whether the defendant's sentence is inappropriate, not whether some other sentence would be more appropriate. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). “Such deference should prevail unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant's character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[8] Here, Carcamo was convicted of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person. The maximum sentence for a Class A misdemeanor is one year and no more than a $5,000 fine. Ind. Code § 35-50-30-2. The trial court sentenced Carcamo to 365 days, with 136 days executed as time served and 229 days suspended to probation and ordered him to receive substance abuse treatment as a condition of probation.

[9] When reviewing the nature of the offense, this court considers “the details and circumstances of the commission of the offense.” Merriweather v. State, 151 N.E.3d 1281, 1286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). Looking to the circumstances of the offense here, Carcamo operated his vehicle with an alcohol content of more than three times the legal limit. The evidence revealed that Carcamo was observed stopping twice in the travel lane of the road, which caused several cars to stop. He was also missing a front tire and was driving on the rim. When Officer Crawford approached Carcamo, he noticed that Carcamo's breath smelled of alcohol, Carcamo had bloodshot, glassy eyes, his speech was slurred, and he fumbled with his wallet, attempting to hand Officer Crawford a card that was not identification. Additionally, Carcamo staggered when attempting to exit the car and needed assistance to avoid falling. The evidence did not portray the nature of the offense in a positive light, accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality. Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122.

[10] The character of the offender is found in what we learn from the offender's life and conduct. Merriweather, 151 N.E.3d at 1286. “A defendant's criminal history is one relevant factor in analyzing character, the significance of which varies based on the ‘gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current offense.’ ” Smoots v. State, 172 N.E.3d 1279, 1290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)). Even a minor criminal history reflects poorly on a defendant's character for the purposes of sentencing. Id.

[11] As to Carcamo's character, the evidence established that, although Carcamo testified that he had no prior criminal convictions, at the time of sentencing, Carcamo was facing charges in Boone County for similar offenses, including operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, and he had a warrant out for his arrest for those charges. Additionally, while on pretrial release for the instant offenses, Carcamo failed to appear for a pretrial hearing and a warrant was issued. He was not apprehended until ten months later, when he was arrested for the Boone County offenses. Although Carcamo points to his young age and support of his infant daughter, he has failed to identify “substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character” to support revising his sentence. Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122.

[12] Based on the facts in the record, Carcamo has not shown that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2.

Foley, Judge.

Vaidik, J. and Weissmann, J., concur.