Tamika Latrice Graves, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Tamika Latrice Graves appeals her sentence following her plea of guilty to Battery Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury, a level 5 felony.¹ She presents the sole issue of whether her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and her character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On May 17, 2020, Graves visited her sister, Krystal Graves, at the apartment that Krystal shared with David Smith and their children. An alcohol-fueled argument arose between Smith and Graves when Smith rejected Graves's request for music. Smith temporarily left the apartment; when he returned, Graves was waiting with a knife. She plunged the knife into Smith's chest, walked over to a sink, washed the knife, and fled. Smith survived his injuries but underwent two surgeries during a month-long hospitalization. Because the blow impacted Smith's heart and impaired its functioning, he must take medication for the rest of his life.

[3] On March 1, 2021, the State charged Graves with Attempted Murder, a Level 1 felony,² Aggravated Battery, a Level 3 felony,³ Battery by Means of a Deadly Weapon, a Level 5 felony,⁴ and Battery Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury. On December 14, 2023, Graves pled guilty to the latter charge and the remaining charges were dismissed. On May 21, 2024, Graves was sentenced to six years imprisonment with two years suspended to probation. She now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[4] Graves asks that we revise her sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that “[t]he Court 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.” Graves points out that she pled guilty; she also asserts that she is “hardworking” and has “demonstrated that she would be compliant with probationary requirements.” Appellant's Brief at 5.

[5] The Indiana Supreme Court has explained that:

The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to leaven the outliers ․ but not achieve a perceived “correct” result in each case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Defendant has the burden to persuade us that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind.), as amended (July 10, 2007), decision clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).

Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original).

[6] Indiana's flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court's judgment “should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate at the end of the day turns on “our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other facts that come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224. The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] 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).

[7] The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one year to six years, with an advisory sentence of three years. I.C. § 35-50-2-6(b). At a sentencing hearing, the court identified as aggravating that the harm, injury, loss, or damage suffered by Smith was “significant and greater than the elements necessary to prove the commission of the offense”; Graves has a criminal history; and she had violated probation by committing the present offense. (Tr. Vol. II, pg. 32.) Grave's decision to plead guilty was recognized as a mitigating factor. The court then found that the aggravators outweighed the mitigator and sentenced Graves to six years imprisonment, with two years suspended to probation.

[8] Our analysis of the “nature of the offense” requires us to look at the nature, extent, heinousness, and brutality of the offense. See Brown v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1, 5 (Ind. 2014). Graves argued with her host over music, waited for him to return to his apartment, and then inflicted a near-fatal wound by stabbing him in the chest. Rather than seek help, Graves walked to the sink, washed the knife, and left the apartment. Smith was hospitalized for approximately one month. He was intubated for ten days and required multiple surgeries to insert a plate into his chest and rods alongside his rib cage. He requires medication for the remainder of his life to promote his heart function. Nothing that is known to us about the nature of the offense militates toward a lesser sentence.

[9] As for Graves's character, she has a criminal history in the State of Illinois consisting of three misdemeanors and four felonies. The misdemeanor convictions include possession of a firearm, driving with a revoked license, and aggravated assault. The felony convictions include aggravated flight from law enforcement, possession of a firearm by a felon, aggravated battery on a peace officer, and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. She violated her probation when she committed the instant offense. Although alcohol was a contributing factor to the attack, Graves reported that she continues to consume alcohol regularly. She pled guilty; however, she received a substantial benefit in return. In sum, Graves's character does not warrant revision of her sentence.

Conclusion

[10] Graves has not met her burden of demonstrating that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and her character.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(1)(g)(1).

2.   I.C. §§ 35-41-5-1, 35-42-1-1.

3.   I.C. § 35-42-2-1.5.

4.   I.C. § 35-42-2-1(1)(g)(2).

Bailey, Judge.

Judges Bradford and Foley concur. Bradford, J., and Foley, J., concur.