EARL v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Tommy Earl appeals his sixty-year sentence for murder, arguing it is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2023, Earl was living in the same apartment complex as Michelle Peacock. The two had a history of disputes, including a complaint by Peacock, a Black woman, to the Richmond Housing Authority alleging that Earl had called her a racial slur. One day in June, Earl looked out his apartment window and saw Peacock in the complex's gazebo. Deciding that he'd “finally taken all [he] was going to take from her,” Earl grabbed a straight razor, went down to the gazebo, walked up to Peacock, and slit her throat, killing her. Ex. 7 p. 7. Earl tried to flee, but witnesses confined him until police arrived. The first officer on the scene ordered Earl to the ground but Earl refused and said, “Yea, I killed that N*****, and I would do it again.” Ex. 5 p. 1. The officer drew his taser, and Earl told him, “If you shoot me with that, I will kill you.” Id. Another officer arrived and tased Earl, and the officers took him into custody.

[3] The State charged Earl with murder, Level 6 felony intimidation, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Earl filed a notice of defense of mental disease or defect. Following two evaluations, the trial court found him competent to stand trial. The parties later entered into a plea agreement under which Earl pled guilty to murder, the State dismissed the remaining counts, and sentencing was left to the discretion of the trial court.

[4] When the probation office prepared Earl's presentence investigation report, Earl reported that he suffered a traumatic brain injury as a child that has caused “problems on and off” throughout his life, including that his brain sometimes “shuts off.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 73. Earl's counsel also arranged for him to undergo a brain-mapping study and presented the results at sentencing, which showed “a tendency for over-reactivity socially, emotionally, and physically” and that “he is deviant in emotional regulation and self-control.” Ex. A p. 2. The court found the following aggravators: (1) the harm, injury, loss, or damage suffered by Peacock was significant and greater than the elements necessary to prove the commission of the offense; (2) Earl has a criminal history, which the court gave “minimal weight due to the age of the prior convictions”; (3) Earl committed the offense with bias due to Peacock's race; (4) Earl showed a lack of remorse; and (5) Earl's recent involvement with police in Michigan, which, although the charges were dismissed, “demonstrat[es] antisocial behavior.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 87. The court found as mitigators that Earl led a law-abiding life for a substantial period before the crime, suffered a traumatic brain injury, pled guilty before trial, and cooperated with law enforcement after his arrest. Finding the aggravators to outweigh the mitigators, the court sentenced Earl to sixty years.

[5] Earl now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Earl asks us to reduce his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that an appellate 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.” The appellate court's role under Rule 7(B) is to “leaven the outliers,” and “we reserve our 7(B) authority for exceptional cases.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 159-60 (Ind. 2019) (quotation omitted). “Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.” Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008)). Because we generally defer to the judgment of trial courts in sentencing matters, defendants must persuade us that their sentences are inappropriate. Schaaf v. State, 54 N.E.3d 1041, 1044-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

[7] The sentencing range for murder is forty-five to sixty-five years, with an advisory sentence of fifty-five years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-3(a). The trial court sentenced Earl to an above-advisory term of sixty years.

[8] Earl concedes that the nature of his offense is “disturbing” and “may support an enhanced sentence,” but he contends his character “demonstrates that an enhanced sentence is inappropriate.” Appellant's Br. pp. 7, 8. Specifically, he highlights the brain injury he suffered as a child and his brain-mapping study, claiming the effects of his injury “played a primary role in his actions.” Id. at 9. This claim is speculative—while the brain-mapping study identified areas of deficiency and deviation in Earl's brain function, the report did not attribute Earl's actions in murdering Peacock to these function levels. See Ex. A. And as the trial court pointed out, the fact that “for a great many years there was no criminal history whatsoever by Mr. Earl ․ seems to defeat the premise that ․ this traumatic brain injury has rendered Mr. Earl unable to control his behavior.” Tr. p. 46. In any event, the trial court found Earl's brain injury to be a mitigator and acknowledged the brain-mapping study when it determined his sentence. See id. at 46, 48. But given the aggravators—especially the brutal nature of the offense, Earl's lack of remorse, and his bias toward Peacock because of her race—Earl has failed to persuade us that his sixty-year sentence is inappropriate.

[9] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Bailey, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.