Eddie Wallace, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Eddie Wallace appeals his two-year prison sentence for Level 6 felony operating a motor vehicle while being a habitual traffic violator. Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), he argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. But this was Wallace's third conviction for the exact same offense and his twenty-ninth conviction overall. We affirm.

Facts

[2] In January 2023, Wallace's driver's license was suspended for ten years because he was a habitual traffic violator.¹ Eight months later, police caught Wallace driving a pickup truck in Fort Wayne. The State charged Wallace with Level 6 felony operating a motor vehicle while being a habitual traffic violator. After a bench trial, Wallace was convicted as charged.

[3] At sentencing, the trial court found Wallace's criminal history to be a “fairly aggravating circumstance.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 64. According to Wallace's pre-sentence investigation report, Wallace had racked up twenty-two prior misdemeanor convictions and six prior felony convictions since 2006. Two of these convictions were for operating a motor vehicle while being a habitual traffic violator. The others included carrying a handgun without a license, auto theft, domestic battery, possession of cocaine, resisting law enforcement, disorderly conduct, public intoxication, criminal trespass, invasion of privacy, reckless driving, and operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

[4] The trial court further observed that alternatives to incarceration had proven unsuccessful for Wallace. In six of his prior cases, Wallace either had his probation revoked or his community corrections placement modified due to noncompliance. Ultimately, the court sentenced Wallace to two years in prison for his new Level 6 felony conviction. Wallace now appeals his sentence as inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

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 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). In reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence, our principal role is to attempt to leaven the outliers, not to achieve a perceived “correct” sentence. Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014). Accordingly, we give “substantial deference” to the trial court's sentencing decision. Id. The trial court's judgment should prevail unless it is “overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense ․ and the defendant's character.” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[6] The appropriateness of a sentence begins with the statutory range established for the subject class of offense. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218. Wallace was convicted of a Level 6 felony, which has a sentencing range of six months to two-and-a-half years and an advisory sentence of one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). Thus, Wallace's two-year sentence is one year more than the advisory sentence and six months less than the maximum.

[7] Wallace argues that his sentence is inappropriate given the nature of his offense, which he characterizes simply as a non-violent mistake. He ignores, however, that this was his third conviction for the exact same felony. And though he generally acknowledges that his criminal history reflects poorly on his character, that history is substantial—twenty-two prior misdemeanor and six prior felony convictions. Wallace also squandered opportunities to serve six of his prior sentences outside of prison walls. For these reasons, he has failed in his burden to show that his two-year prison sentence is inappropriate.

[8] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   “A person who has accumulated at least three (3) judgments within a ten (10) year period for [certain motor vehicle] violations, singularly or in combination, and not arising out of the same incident, is a habitual violator.” Ind. Code § 9-30-10-4(b).

Weissmann, Judge.

Judges Pyle and Felix concur. Pyle, J., and Felix, J., concur.