FORREST v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Fifty-seven-year-old Timothy Forrest stole toilet paper from a Family Dollar store, hopped into a car, and quickly crashed into a light pole in the store's parking lot. Fleeing on foot, Forrest instructed a bystander not to call the police. For all this, Forrest was convicted of theft and fleeing the scene of an accident—his 29th and 30th criminal convictions—and was sentenced to a total of 11/212 years. Declining to find this sentence inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts

[2] The State charged Forrest with Level 6 felony theft and Class B misdemeanor failing to remain at the scene of an accident. Forrest pleaded guilty.

[3] At sentencing, Forrest recognized his lengthy criminal history of 28 prior convictions, many of those for theft. The State emphasized that Forrest's probation had been revoked 6 times and that he had 5 warrants issued for his arrest in the past two years due to his failure to appear in court. Additionally, Forrest committed the present crimes while out on bond and awaiting sentencing for two of his prior thefts.

[4] Forrest argued that his plea, made without the benefit of an agreement, was a mitigating factor. The trial court agreed, but found Forrest's criminal record could not “be ignored” and “outweigh[ed] any factors in mitigation.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 17. Forrest claims his cumulative 11/212-year sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

Discussion and Decision

[5] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) permits an appellate court to revise a sentence if, “after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” We give “substantial deference” to the trial court's sentencing decision. Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014).

[6] Forrest was sentenced to 11/212 years for the theft, which is slightly above the 1-year advisory sentence but below the maximum 21/212-year sentence for a Level 6 felony. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). His 180-day sentence for the Class B misdemeanor is the maximum. See Ind. Code § 35-50-3-3. However, the trial court ordered the sentences run concurrently for a total sentence of 11/212 years for both offenses. We are not persuaded that this is inappropriate.

[7] As to the nature of the offense, Forrest emphasizes that he only stole toilet paper and did not act with violence or cause injury. Though the value of his theft was minimal, Forrest created a dangerous situation by driving through a shopping center parking lot at an admittedly “unreasonable rate of speed.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 11. He ultimately crashed his car before fleeing on foot. This frenzied flight shows that Forrest committed the crimes without restraint or regard for the safety of others. See Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 112 (Ind. 2015) (explaining nature of offense viewed positively when committed with restraint or regard).

[8] On the issue of character, Forrest's criminal history is significant. “Even a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendant's character.” Moss v. State, 13 N.E.3d 440, 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). But Forrest's record of 28 convictions is far from minor and includes numerous convictions for theft, one of the crimes at issue here. See Brattain v. State, 891 N.E.2d 1055, 1058 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (“[T]he significance of previous crimes varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses as they relate to the current offense.”).

[9] Forrest has violated probation 6 times, failed to appear in court 5 times in the past two years, and committed the current offenses while out on bond and awaiting sentencing for 2 other theft convictions. This establishes a pattern of “ongoing disrespect for the law” and shows Forrest is not a good candidate for release on probation. See id.

[10] Because Forrest fails to convince us that his 11/212-year sentence is inappropriate, we affirm.

affirmed

Weissmann, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Foley, J., concur.