JONES v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Phillip Wayne Jones (“Jones”) pleaded guilty to resisting law enforcement ¹ as a Class A misdemeanor and operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person ² as a Class A misdemeanor and was sentenced to 365 days with 180 days suspended on each count with the sentences to run consecutively for a total executed sentence of 370 days. Jones appeals his sentence, arguing that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On July 26, 2024, Officer Morgan Henderson (“Officer Henderson”) of the City of Greendale Police Department responded to a motor vehicle collision at the intersection of U.S. Highway 50 and Interstate 275. Upon arrival, Officer Henderson found that a car had rear-ended a truck, and both vehicles were heavily damaged. Jones was still seated in the driver's seat of the car, while the driver of the truck, Robert Mueller (“Mueller”), was outside his vehicle. Officer Henderson noticed that Jones had red, watery eyes and impaired dexterity. Both Jones and his car smelled of alcohol, and a bottle of whiskey was visible in the center console of the car. After speaking with Officer Henderson, Jones grabbed the bottle of whiskey and began to unscrew the cap. Another officer who had responded to the scene, tried to take the bottle from Jones, who responded by squeezing the bottle and spraying whiskey onto the officer. After the whiskey was finally taken from Jones, he began shouting profanities at the officers.

[3] Jones refused to exit the vehicle and claimed he had a shotgun in the car pointed at the officers when the officers attempted to remove him from the vehicle. As the officers removed Jones from the car, handcuffed him, and put him in the police car, Jones continued to yell profanities and threaten the officers. After being read Indiana's implied consent law, Jones refused to consent to being tested for intoxication. Officer Henderson obtained a search warrant and then transported Jones for a blood draw.

[4] On July 29, 2024, the State charged Jones with Class A misdemeanor intimidation, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated endangering a person, and Class C misdemeanor operating while intoxicated. On September 9, 2024, the charging information was amended to add an additional count of Class A misdemeanor operating with a blood alcohol content of .15 or greater. On the same date, the trial court held a guilty plea and sentencing hearing. During the hearing, Jones pleaded guilty to Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person. In exchange, the State dismissed the other three charges.

[5] During the sentencing portion of the hearing, Mueller testified that the collision resulted in a total loss of his truck. He testified that he had to buy a new truck and replaced his 2012 Silverado with a 2021 Silverado, which required him to take out a loan of $38,000. As a result of the collision, Mueller had some lingering jaw pain for a while and had trouble opening his mouth for a period of time, resulting in ongoing medical and dental treatments.

[6] Jones testified that he is an alcoholic but that this was his first OWI “in many, many years.” Tr. Vol. II p. 6. He expressed remorse for his conduct and stated he was grateful that no one was seriously injured in the collision. Jones informed the court that while incarcerated prior to pleading guilty, he had been working through a substance abuse program called Choices. He stated he intended to engage in an inpatient treatment program upon his release from incarceration. Jones stated he understood he needed an assessment for individual counseling and agreed to follow all recommendations from an assessment. He also planned to attend AA meetings and planned to reside either at a halfway house or with his girlfriend.

[7] Evidence was presented that Jones had a significant criminal history that consisted of convictions from both Indiana and Kentucky, including a prior resisting law enforcement conviction and three convictions for theft, two for battery, and several for non-support of a dependent. During the hearing, Jones also testified that he had a prior operating while intoxicated conviction several years prior and that he had a public intoxication conviction the previous year. Jones also had several previous probation violations and failures to appear.

[8] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court sentenced Jones to 365 days on each count, suspended 180 days on each count, and ordered the sentences to run consecutive to each other. Thus, Jones received an aggregate sentence of 730 days with 360 days suspended, resulting in an aggregate executed sentence of 370 days. The trial court also ordered one year of probation and suspended Jones's driving privileges for two years. In pronouncing the sentence, the court stated that it considered Jones's criminal history, the impact on Mueller, and the circumstances that there was a whiskey bottle in the vehicle and Jones's threat of claiming to point a shotgun at the officers. Id. at 17. Jones now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Jones argues that his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). The Indiana Constitution authorizes appellate review and revision of a trial court's sentencing decision. See Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6; Jackson v. State, 145 N.E.3d 783, 784 (Ind. 2020). “That authority is implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), which permits an appellate court to revise a sentence if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the sentence is found to be inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 159 (Ind. 2019).

[10] Our review under Appellate Rule 7(B) focuses on “the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). We generally defer to the trial court's sentencing decision, and our goal is to determine whether the defendant's sentence is inappropriate, not whether some other sentence would be more appropriate. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). “Such deference should prevail 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).

[11] Here, Jones was convicted of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person. A person who commits a Class A misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2. The trial court sentenced Jones to 365 days on each Class A misdemeanor conviction with 180 days suspended and ordered the sentences to be served consecutively.

[12] When reviewing the nature of the offense, this court considers “the details and circumstances of the commission of the offense.” Merriweather v. State, 151 N.E.3d 1281, 1286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). In arguing that his sentence is inappropriate, Jones contends that, although the motor vehicle collision and damage to Mueller were beyond the elements of his convictions, the majority of Jones's conduct “was part and parcel of the offenses” for which he was convicted and did not “substantially exceed the elements of his offenses.” Appellant's Br. pp. 10–11.

[13] Jones pleaded guilty to Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person ³ and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.⁴ However, his conduct at the time of his offenses was more egregious than the base elements of his convictions. Jones's conduct in driving while intoxicated was dangerous and resulted in him rear-ending Mueller's truck. The collision resulted in extensive damage, totaling Mueller's truck, which necessitated him taking out a loan to purchase a replacement vehicle. The collision also caused physical injury to Mueller in that he experienced jaw pain and had resulting medical and dental expenses. Therefore, the evidence established that Jones's actions exceeded the elements of operating while intoxicated endangering a person. As to resisting law enforcement, Jones's actions also exceeded what was needed to show the basic elements of that crime as well. When the officers were speaking with Jones, he sprayed whiskey on one of the officers, shouted profanities at the officers, and claimed he had a shotgun in the car pointed at the officers when the officers attempted to remove him from the vehicle. Even after he was removed from the car and handcuffed, he continued to yell profanities and threaten the officers. Looking to the circumstances of Jones's offenses, he has not demonstrated compelling evidence that portrays the nature of the offense in a positive light accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality that would warrant disturbing the trial court's sentence. See Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122.

[14] The character of the offender is found in what we learn from the offender's life and conduct. Merriweather, 151 N.E.3d at 1286. “A defendant's criminal history is one relevant factor in analyzing character, the significance of which varies based on the ‘gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current offense.’ ” Smoots v. State, 172 N.E.3d 1279, 1290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)).

[15] As to Jones's character, the evidence established that he has a significant criminal record that includes convictions for theft, battery, and non-support of a dependent both in Indiana and Kentucky. Further, Jones had prior convictions for the exact same crimes, both resisting law enforcement and operating a vehicle while intoxicated, for which he was convicted in the present case. Although Jones contends that he has not had a conviction for many years, during the hearing, he testified to a public intoxication conviction from the previous year. The evidence also revealed that Jones previously violated probation several times and failed to appear for court hearings on numerous occasions. Thus, Jones has previously been given leniency in sentencing and failed to take advantage of those opportunities. While we acknowledge that Jones expressed remorse at the hearing when he pleaded guilty, he did receive a substantial benefit for pleading guilty as three other pending charges were dismissed as a part of his plea agreement. We also commend Jones for his desire to address his alcoholism and the steps he has taken toward recovery, but that evidence coupled with his criminal history does not demonstrate his actions as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character such that Jones's sentence is inappropriate. See Stephenson 29 N.E.3d at 122.

[16] Based on the facts in the record, Jones has not shown that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1).

2.   I.C. § 9-30-5-2.

3.   “[A] person who operates a vehicle while intoxicated” in a “manner that endangers a person” commits a Class A misdemeanor. I.C. § 9-30-5-2.

4.   “A person who knowingly or intentionally ․ forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties” commits resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor. I.C. § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1).

Foley, Judge.

Mathias, J. and Felix, J., concur.