VALENTIN v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Jose Valentin ¹ pleaded guilty in Dearborn Superior Court to Level 4 felony aiding in dealing methamphetamine, Level 6 felony dealing in marijuana, Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance, Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Valentin appeals his ten-year sentence for Level 4 felony aiding in dealing methamphetamine arguing that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In February 2023, law enforcement officers were conducting surveillance on Valentin's residence because they had received information that he was selling marijuana, methamphetamine, ecstasy, and suboxone. On February 4, officers followed a vehicle that had been parked in Valentin's driveway. After an officer observed the driver commit a traffic infraction, the officer initiated a traffic stop. The officer discovered marijuana and methamphetamine in the vehicle. The officer questioned the driver, and the driver stated that he had purchased the contraband from Anthony Keeney at Valentin's residence.

[4] Law enforcement officers obtained a search warrant for Valentin's leased residence and its detached garage. When they executed the warrant, Valentin and a woman were inside the residence, and Keeney and a second woman were inside the detached garage. The officers found methamphetamine, marijuana, scales, bags, pipes, and paraphernalia when they searched Valentin's residence. They also seized Valentin's cell phone and discovered text messages between Valentin and three separate individuals discussing the sale of drugs.

[5] Two days after law enforcement had executed the search warrant, the State charged Valentin with eight drug-related offenses. On October 11, Valentin pleaded guilty to Level 4 felony aiding in dealing methamphetamine, Level 6 felony dealing in marijuana, Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance, Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

[6] At the sentencing hearing, the trial court considered Valentin's prior criminal history as an aggravating circumstance. Valentin has prior convictions for theft, operating while intoxicated, possession of a controlled substance, counterfeiting, and leaving the scene of an accident. The court specifically observed that, although the instant case was Valentin's first conviction for dealing, the “officer's testimony provided that the dealing was ongoing and involved multiple individuals.” Appellant's App. p. 175. The court also found that it was not likely that Valentin would respond affirmatively to short term incarceration or probation “considering defendant's previous criminal history and the ongoing nature of his criminal actions in this matter.” Id. at 175-76. The court found Valentin's guilty plea, strong family support, and completion of a substance abuse program to be mitigating circumstances but gave them “limited weight.” Id. at 176.

[7] After concluding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances, the trial court imposed the following sentences:

Level 4 felony aiding in dealing methamphetamine: ten years with two years to be served on in-home incarceration and two years suspended to probation.

Level 6 felony dealing in marijuana: two years

Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance: two years

Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana: 180 days

Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia: 60 days

The court ordered the sentences imposed to be served concurrently with each other. Therefore, in the aggregate, the court ordered Valentin to serve ten years with two years on in-home incarceration and two years suspended to probation.

[8] Valentin now appeals his ten-year sentence for Level 4 felony aiding in dealing methamphetamine.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Valentin challenges only the sentence imposed for his Level 4 felony aiding in dealing methamphetamine conviction. He argues that his ten-year sentence is inappropriate. Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), we may modify a sentence that we find is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Making this determination “turns on our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). Sentence modification under Rule 7(B), however, is reserved for “a rare and exceptional case.” Livingston v. State, 113 N.E.3d 611, 612 (Ind. 2018) (per curiam).

[10] When conducting this review, we generally defer to the sentence imposed by the trial court. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). Our role is to “leaven the outliers,” not to achieve what may be perceived as the “correct” result. Id. Thus, deference to the trial court's sentence will prevail unless the defendant persuades us the sentence is inappropriate by producing compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense—such as showing restraint or a lack of brutality—and the defendant's character—such as showing substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of positive attributes. Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[11] “A person who commits a Level 4 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two (2) and twelve (12) years, with the advisory sentence being six (6) years.” Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5. Valentin's sentence is less than the maximum allowed but four years more than the advisory sentence for a Level 4 felony. The trial court also ordered Valentin to serve two years of the ten-year sentence in community corrections, specifically in-home incarceration, and suspended two years of the sentence to probation.

[12] Valentin claims the nature of his offense does not warrant a sentence beyond the six-year advisory sentence. He states that he cooperated with law enforcement when they executed the warrant at his residence, he did not cause harm to any person, and the quantity of methamphetamine and marijuana discovered in his residence was not substantial.

[13] But, as the trial court observed, Valentin's dealing in multiple substances was “ongoing and involved multiple individuals.” Appellant's App. p. 175. And while we agree that fourteen grams of marijuana and 1.2 grams of methamphetamine are not substantial amounts, Valentin's involvement in drug dealing was significant. Further, Valentin has not cited any evidence “portraying in a positive light the nature of [his] offense.” Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122.

[14] Concerning his character, Valentin states that he pleaded guilty and took accountability for his offenses. He also attributes his criminal history to his addiction to drugs and alcohol. Valentin claims that he has begun addressing his addiction issues. Specifically, he completed a substance abuse program while he was incarcerated and found a support group.

[15] Valentin's recent efforts at addressing his substance abuse issues are laudable. But the trial court considered that evidence against forty-one-year-old Valentin's failure to seek treatment and address his addiction issues earlier in his adult life. In addition, Valentin did not take advantage of prior opportunities for rehabilitation when he was allowed to serve his sentences for his prior criminal offenses on probation. Finally, Valentin's decision to plead guilty was most likely a pragmatic one given the evidence found in his residence and on his cellphone. Moreover, at sentencing, the State presented evidence that Valentin was not entirely truthful when he disclosed his participation in the charged offenses. Tr. pp. 37, 41. Finally, Valentin has not presented compelling evidence of substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of positive attributes that would warrant a downward revision of his less than maximum ten-year sentence. See Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122.

Conclusion

[16] Valentin has not persuaded our court that his ten-year sentence with two years to be served on in-home incarceration and two years suspended to probation is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We acknowledge the traditional spelling of José but this defendant utilizes Jose as the proper spelling of his first name. See Appellant's App. pp. 69-70.

Mathias, Judge.

Brown, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.