MAJORS v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Thomas Majors appeals the sixteen-year sentence, with thirteen years executed and three years suspended to probation, imposed by the trial court following his guilty plea to aggravated battery as a level 3 felony. He asserts that the sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 27, 2022, Majors was with his girlfriend Teresa Radford, his friend Gregory Ware, and Ware's girlfriend Deayjiha Brown, at Radford's house. Majors consumed alcohol, methamphetamine, and marijuana. At one point, the two females began arguing because Radford believed Brown was sleeping with Majors. Ware stepped between the two females in an attempt to break up the fight, and either intentionally or accidentally struck Radford on the side of her face. Majors pulled out a silver handgun, pointed it at Ware, and shot him multiple times in the chest and throat. After Ware fell to the floor, Majors took a black semi-automatic pistol from Ware and fled the scene. A neighbor called 911 after Brown ran out of the house yelling for help. Ware was taken to the hospital in critical condition. As a result of the injuries suffered, Ware was paralyzed from the waist down and placed on a ventilator.

[3] On July 18, 2022, the State charged Majors with attempted murder as a level 1 felony. A few months later, Ware passed away from complications caused by his injuries. On the day of the scheduled jury trial, April 20, 2024, Majors entered into a plea agreement with the State pursuant to which he agreed to plead guilty to aggravated battery as a level 3 felony in exchange for a dismissal of the attempted murder charge and an executed sentencing cap of thirteen years.¹ The agreement also provided for dismissal of charges of criminal confinement as a level 3 felony, and strangulation and two counts of domestic battery as level 6 felonies, under cause number 49D27-2301-F3-1446 (“Cause No. 1446”). Further, Majors also agreed to admit to violating his probation in cause number 49D27-2101-CM-1388 in exchange for his probation being terminated unsuccessfully with no sanction imposed. Following a sentencing hearing on May 23, 2024, the court sentenced Majors to sixteen years, with thirteen years executed in the Department of Correction and three years suspended to probation.

Discussion

[4] Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, [we find] that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Under this rule, the burden is on the defendant to persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

[5] Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5(b) provides that a person who commits a level 3 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term between three and sixteen years, with an advisory sentence of nine years. The court here imposed a sixteen-year sentence, with thirteen years executed and three years suspended to probation.

[6] Our review of the nature of the offense reveals that Majors, after having consumed alcohol, methamphetamine, and marijuana, used a firearm to shoot his friend who was simply trying to break up an argument. He shot his friend four times in the chest and throat and then fled the scene. His friend did not die immediately but instead was rendered paralyzed and suffered for several months before tragically succumbing to his injuries. The nature of the offense is brutal to say the least.

[7] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Majors pled guilty on the day of the scheduled jury trial over twenty-one months after being charged in exchange for an executed sentencing cap of thirteen years and the dismissal of the attempted murder charge and multiple felonies in Cause No. 1446. Majors has an extensive criminal history. The presentence investigation report provides that, as a juvenile, Majors was adjudicated delinquent multiple times, had his probation terminated unsuccessfully, and was required to attend several substance abuse and counseling treatment programs. As an adult, Majors has been arrested more than twenty times, and he has nine felony and at least five misdemeanor convictions. His felony convictions include theft, three counts of violation or failure of a carrier's duty to warn, operating a vehicle while suspended as an habitual violator, operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a prior conviction and a passenger under eighteen years old, carrying a handgun without a license, auto theft, and receiving stolen property. His probation has been revoked three times, and his placement on home detention and work release were both revoked due to violations. He has failed to complete substance abuse treatment despite multiple opportunities, and during his time spent in the Department of Correction, he has received numerous conduct reports and was found guilty of the majority. The record further reveals that Majors committed the current offense, as well as the multiple offenses charged under Cause No. 1446, while on probation for domestic battery.

[8] After due consideration, we conclude that Majors has not sustained his burden of establishing that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.²

[9] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Majors's sentence.

[10] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   During the guilty plea hearing, the prosecutor indicated that “the State would have filed this to a murder charge without this plea.” Transcript Volume II at 34-35.

2.   Although the sole issue raised by Majors is whether his sentence is inappropriate, he appears to conflate two separate sentencing standards: whether the trial court abused its discretion during sentencing in failing to assign significant mitigating weight to his mental health and whether his sentence is inappropriate pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7. “As our [Indiana] Supreme Court has made clear, inappropriate sentence and abuse of discretion claims are to be analyzed separately.” King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Accordingly, “an inappropriate sentence analysis does not involve an argument that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the defendant.” Id. Moreover, to the extent Majors suggests the trial court abused its discretion, the trial court acknowledged his mental health issues. The relative weight or value assignable to aggravators or mitigators is not subject to review on appeal. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). Accordingly, we decline to address his argument further.

Brown, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.