Jeffrey Scott Lee, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] The Henry Circuit Court sentenced Jeffrey Scott Lee to an aggregate six and one-half years with four years suspended for his Level 6 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person conviction and his habitual vehicular substance offender adjudication. Lee appeals, arguing that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On April 14, 2020, the State charged Lee with Level 6 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication in case number 33C03-2004-F6-156 (“F6-156”). The State dismissed the public intoxication charge and Lee pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The court in F6-156 sentenced Lee to two and one-half years to be served on home detention. The trial court later revoked Lee's placement after he tested positive for alcohol on a breathalyzer test. The trial court ordered Lee to serve time in the Henry County Jail and placed him on formal probation for two years upon his release from jail.

[4] Subsequently, on August 21, 2023, an officer with the New Castle Police Department arrested Lee following a traffic stop. The officer activated his sirens and lights after seeing Lee cross the center line twice and drive off the road into the grass. Lee initially stopped his vehicle in the middle of the road. The officer had to ask Lee several times to move his vehicle over to the side of the road before Lee finally complied with the officer's order.

[5] After approaching him, the arresting officer could smell alcohol on Lee's person. The officer asked Lee if he had been drinking, and Lee replied, “I did, I had a couple of drinks.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 134.

[6] According to the officer, Lee displayed six out of the six possible clues during a horizontal gaze nystagmus test. The officer gave Lee a portable breath test, which indicated a blood alcohol content of 0.284. Due to the portable breath test results, the officer transported Lee to the local hospital for a blood draw. After the blood draw, the officer arrested Lee.

[7] In case number 33C03-2308-F6-332 (“F6-332”), the State charged Lee with Level 6 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, and Class C infraction driving left of center, and the State alleged that he was a habitual vehicular substance offender. The State also filed a petition to revoke Lee's probation in F6-156 based on the allegations in F6-332.

[8] On May 1, 2024, Lee pleaded guilty in F6-332 and admitted, through a written plea agreement, to committing Level 6 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated and to being a habitual vehicular substance offender. In that plea agreement, the State recommended a sentence of one and one-half years for operating a vehicle while intoxicated and one year for being a habitual vehicular substance offender. Lee and the State also agreed “that the additional sentence over the recommended sentence will be suspended.” Id. at 107. Additionally, Lee admitted to violating his probation in F6-156. The plea agreement stipulated that the two years of Lee's probation in F6-156 would be revoked.

[9] During Lee's sentencing hearing, the trial court considered Lee's significant criminal history as an aggravating circumstance. Lee had seven prior misdemeanor and seven prior felony convictions. Eight of Lee's prior convictions involved operating while intoxicated or operating under the influence. Lee also has additional convictions for public intoxication and possession of illegal substances. The court considered Lee's guilty plea as a mitigating circumstance.

[10] The trial court accepted the plea agreement and revoked two years of Lee's home detention placement in F6-156 as provided in the plea agreement. The Court then sentenced Lee to one and one-half years for the Level 6 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated conviction and five years for the habitual vehicular substance offender adjudication. The court then suspended four years of Lee's aggregate six and one-half year sentence, as was required by the terms of the plea agreement.

[11] Lee now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[12] Lee claims that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character.¹ Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), we may modify a sentence that we find is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Making this determination “turns on our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). Sentence modification under Rule 7(B), however, is reserved for “a rare and exceptional case.” Livingston v. State, 113 N.E.3d 611, 612 (Ind. 2018) (per curiam).

[13] When conducting this review, we generally defer to the sentence imposed by the trial court. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). That deference will prevail unless the defendant persuades us the sentence is inappropriate by producing compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense—such as showing restraint or a lack of brutality—and the defendant's character—such as showing substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of positive attributes. Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[14] Level 6 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated has a sentencing range of six months to two and one-half years, with an advisory sentence of one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). And the court shall sentence a person found to be a habitual vehicular substance offender to an additional term of one to eight years of imprisonment. I.C. § 9-30-15.5-2(d).

[15] Before we consider Lee's argument that his sentence is inappropriate, we observe that the State and Lee entered into a plea agreement where the State recommended a sentence less than the maximum allowed, and that any sentence imposed beyond the two and one-half year recommended aggregate sentence would be suspended. In this circumstance, our courts have observed that “ ‘a defendant's conscious choice to enter a plea agreement that limits the trial court's discretion to a sentence less than the statutory maximum should usually be understood as strong and persuasive evidence of sentence reasonableness and appropriateness.’ ” See Stephens v. State, 235 N.E.3d 183, (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting Merriweather v. State, 151 N.E.3d 1281, 1286 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1081 (Ind. 2006) (Dickson, J., concurring))). For this reason, Lee faces a much heavier burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate.

[16] Lee has not presented any compelling evidence concerning the nature of his offense to support his argument that his aggregate sentence is inappropriate. In fact, Lee is fortunate that his impaired driving did not injure the arresting officer or any other drivers. The arresting officer observed Lee crossing the center line twice, and Lee's blood alcohol content was over three times the legal limit of 0.08.

[17] Lee's repeated disregard for the law reflects poorly on his character. Lee drove a vehicle while intoxicated knowing that he was on probation for committing the same offense three years earlier. Lee has seven prior misdemeanor and seven prior felony convictions, eight of which involved operating while intoxicated or operating under the influence. Lee has also violated probation several times, including twice in F6-156. Lee has demonstrated that he is unable to lead a law-abiding life. Finally, though he “displayed insight into his addiction and need for treatment,” see Appellant's Br. at 9, Lee has not taken advantage of the many opportunities he has been given to successfully rehabilitate himself.

Conclusion

[18] Lee has not met his heavy burden of persuading us that his aggregate six and one-half year sentence with four years suspended is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

[19] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In his brief, Lee attempts to argue that his aggregate sentence is eight and one-half years by tacking on the two years imposed for his probation revocation in F6-156. Lee cannot appeal his probation revocation under Appellate Rule 7(B). See Milliner v. State, 890 N.E.2d 789, 793 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. In his brief, Lee also sporadically states that the trial court abused its discretion. Appellant's Br. at 4, 7, 8. However, the brief lacks any analysis or cogent arguments for this claim. See King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (stating that “inappropriate sentence claims and abuse of discretion claims are to be analyzed separately”). Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) states that arguments must “contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each contention must be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on.” Lee has therefore waived his abuse of discretion sentencing claim in this appeal.

Mathias, Judge.

Judges Brown and Kenworthy concur. Brown, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.