Aareon D. Neely, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] During a routine traffic stop, Aareon Neely admitted to police that he had smoked marijuana but declined to submit to full testing to ascertain whether he was impaired. After a court issued a warrant to draw Neely's blood, Neely violently resisted hospital staff and police officers before the blood could be drawn. For this, Neely was convicted of two misdemeanors: disorderly conduct and operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

[2] At his jury trial, Neely was twice found in contempt for engaging in what the trial court described as “the most bizarre in-court behavior” that it had ever witnessed. Tr. Vol. IV, p. 129. This behavior included repeatedly speaking directly to the jury including accusing an officer of being “crooked” and alleging the State had hidden evidence. Tr. Vol. IV, p. 10. Neely also routinely flouted the trial court's directive to stop his obdurate behavior—that is, insisting on providing a narrative answer to questions requiring only a response of yes or no—during the State's cross-examination of him. The court ultimately sentenced Neely to a total of 11/212 years imprisonment but allowed him to serve his sentence in community corrections. Neely appeals this sentence, arguing it is inappropriate given the nature of the offenses and his character. We affirm.

Facts

[3] Neely drove to his forklift operator job shortly after smoking marijuana. On the way, he both speeded past other vehicles and failed to use his signal when required. A police officer observed these infractions, initiated a traffic stop of Neely's vehicle, and smelled marijuana coming from inside. Neely admitted smoking marijuana earlier but claimed he was not impaired. After failing several field sobriety tests, the officer requested Neely submit to a full drug recognition expert examination aimed at determining whether Neely was impaired by drugs.¹ Neely refused, leading the officer to obtain a warrant to draw Neely's blood at a local hospital.

[4] At the hospital, Neely became combative and resisted commands for over thirty minutes. Multiple officers and medical staff had to physically restrain Neely to complete the blood draw. Neely's resistance was so extreme that his vein ruptured during the first blood draw attempt. After the procedure, Neely told one of the officers that he would beat the officer if the officer were not in uniform.

[5] Neely was charged with two counts of Level 6 felony battery against a public safety official, Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle with a Schedule I or II controlled substance or its metabolite, Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct, and misdemeanor possession of marijuana (a count that was later dismissed). He pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and the Class C misdemeanor operating with a controlled substance or its metabolite charge. The trial court entered judgment of conviction on those two charges, and Neely proceeded to trial on the other counts.

[6] During his trial, Neely's disruptive courtroom behavior—including talking directly to the jury, being disrespectful to the court, and refusing to answer questions in an appropriate manner—resulted in two contempt findings. The jury found Neely guilty of the Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated count but acquitted him of both felony battery charges. The trial court entered judgment of conviction on the Class A misdemeanor operating charge and vacated the Class C misdemeanor operating conviction on double jeopardy grounds.

[7] At sentencing on Neely's two convictions—Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct—the court agreed to refrain from sanctioning Neely for his earlier contempt. The court sentenced him to consecutive terms of one year for operating a vehicle while intoxicated and 180 days for disorderly conduct. But the court authorized both sentences to be served in community corrections. Neely appeals, arguing that this sentence is inappropriate because it reflects the court's anger at his disruptive behavior rather than his status as a low-level offender.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), 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.” “We conduct this review with ‘substantial deference’ to the trial court because the ‘principal role of [our] review is to attempt to leaven the outliers, and not to achieve a perceived correct sentence.’ ” Scott v. State, 162 N.E.3d 578, 584 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014)). Neely bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. See Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

[9] We begin our 7(B) review by considering the statutory sentencing range 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. Neely was convicted of Class A misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, which carries a sentence of up to one-year imprisonment. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2. He was also convicted of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct, for which the sanction is up to 180 days imprisonment. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-3. Thus, Neely received the maximum sentence on each count, although the trial court allowed him the alternative of serving the sentence in community corrections, rather than jail.

[10] As to the nature of the offenses, Neely argues that the trial court sentenced him to the maximum sentence for the two misdemeanors “because she was ‘mad at’ Neely for his behavior during the course of the trial, rather than because she felt the community would be ‘afraid of’ him.” Appellant's Br., pp. 13-14 (quoting Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 123 (Ind. 2024) (emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between offenders the community is merely “mad at” versus those it has reason to be “afraid of”)). Neely contends he poses no danger to others and is a low-level offender undeserving of a 11/212-year sentence.

[11] Neely's efforts to minimize his offenses ignore the salient facts supporting his sentence. He admitted smoking marijuana approximately thirty minutes before driving to his job as a forklift operator. His use of an illegal drug not only endangered his fellow motorists but also potentially anyone in his path while he was operating heavy machinery.

[12] Neely then engaged in extended combative behavior in the hospital. He continued to yell after being told sick patients were nearby. He also refused to comply with police officers’ repeated commands to move out of the emergency room hallway and into a treatment room and to lay down for the blood draw. Even while handcuffed to the hospital bed, Neely flailed, kicked, and struggled so violently that his vein ruptured during the initial blood draw attempt. It took three officers and at least three medical personnel to restrain him for this routine procedure. Neely's actions risked the safety of all these individuals, who were simply trying to comply with a lawful court order that Neely openly flouted. Following the blood draw, Neely threatened one of the officers with physical violence. Throughout the 30-minute-plus ordeal at the hospital, Neely showed disrespect for the law and the court that issued the warrant.

[13] As to Neely's character, he has a criminal history consisting of convictions for aggravated battery in 2005, domestic battery in 2015, and invasion of privacy in 2020 and 2022. See generally Moss v. State, 13 N.E.3d 440, 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (observing that a criminal history “is a poor reflection of a defendant's character”). Neely was unsuccessfully discharged from probation twice for failing to comply with probation rules. At the time of his sentencing in the present case, he was facing an unrelated charge of battery resulting in bodily injury. Neely's aggregate criminal history reflects a troubling pattern of disregard for the law that is consistent with his actions in this case.

[14] Neely's conduct during trial proceedings does not reflect well on his character either. Despite admonishments from the trial court, Neely repeatedly directed comments to the jury, accused an officer of being “crooked,” and claimed evidence was being hidden from the jury. Tr. Vol. IV, p. 10. Neely's conduct was so disruptive that the trial court found him in contempt twice during the trial. Id. at 10, 19. The trial court characterized this as the “most bizarre in-court behavior” it had ever witnessed. Id. at 129. Neely's obstructive conduct throughout his detention and during his later trial demonstrates a continuing and fundamental lack of respect for judicial authority and proceedings.

[15] The court, by allowing Neely to serve his sentence through community corrections rather than in jail, imposed a sentence that provided necessary supervision while still allowing Neely access to rehabilitation programs that the trial court believed he needed. Considering both the nature of the offenses and Neely's character, Neely fails to demonstrate that his aggregate 11/212-year sentence in community corrections is inappropriate.

[16] We affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In describing the “full” drug recognition expert examination, the officer who stopped Neely testified:“The full components would be you see -- you talk to them about when's the last time they slept, when they ate, you're looking to look at their body temperature, pulse, which you take three times during it to see if they're (sic) pulse is high or low or if it switches in between, you're looking for blood pressure, how the pupils react to light, you're looking at if there's any marks on their body like in their arms for syringes, and other things like that.”Tr. Vol. III, pp. 22-23.

Weissmann, Judge.

Judges May and Scheele concur. May, J., and Scheele, J., concur.