Michael Thomas, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] After pleading guilty to possession of cocaine and possession of paraphernalia, Michael Thomas entered a drug court program as part of an agreement deferring his convictions. But he soon tested positive for cocaine, left his recovery facility, and failed to contact the drug court until he was arrested on new cocaine-related charges a year later. Thomas was then terminated from the drug court program, convicted according to his pleas, and sentenced to four years in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). He appeals that sentence as inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and character. We affirm.

Facts

[2] In June 2023, Fort Wayne police officers were dispatched to a residence in response to a reported domestic incident involving a firearm. After failing to locate anyone at the residence, officers encountered Thomas walking down the middle of the street toward them. Thomas voluntarily disclosed that he was not armed but did have a BB gun on his person. As he reached to retrieve the BB gun, an officer observed a glass pipe containing burnt residue, which the officer recognized as a pipe used to smoke crack cocaine.¹ Officers handcuffed Thomas and conducted a search incident to his arrest. In Thomas's front pocket, the officers found a clear plastic bag containing 7.2 grams of cocaine and a bottle with an additional 0.5 grams of cocaine. In Thomas's back pocket, the officers found a second crack pipe inside a cigarette pack.

[3] The State charged Thomas with Level 5 felony possession of cocaine and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Three months later, Thomas pleaded guilty to both charges. But the trial court agreed to take Thomas's guilty pleas under advisement while Thomas entered a drug court diversion program. Under this arrangement, if Thomas satisfied the program requirements—which included completing in-patient residential treatment, submitting to random drug testing, obeying the law, and appearing in court when required—the State would move to dismiss both charges. However, if Thomas failed to comply with program requirements, the court would convict him of the crimes to which he pleaded guilty and proceed to sentencing.

[4] Just one month after entering the diversion program, Thomas failed to appear for a required drug screen. The next day, he tested positive for cocaine and failed to return to his drug treatment facility. Soon thereafter, Thomas was terminated from the facility's program for non-compliance. He then failed to appear for a court hearing, resulting in the issuance of a warrant. Almost a year later, Thomas was arrested and charged with a new offense of dealing in cocaine.

[5] After the State petitioned to terminate Thomas from the diversion program, Thomas admitted that he violated the program's terms. The trial court granted the State's petition and scheduled a sentencing hearing on the charges to which Thomas had previously pleaded guilty. At the hearing, the court heard evidence of Thomas's criminal history, his pattern of non-compliance with rehabilitation services, and his remorse for failing to follow through on his most recent opportunity for recovery. The court sentenced Thomas to four years in the DOC for possession of cocaine and 60 days for possession of paraphernalia, to be served concurrently. Thomas now appeals that sentence as inappropriate.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) states that an appellate court may revise a sentence 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 give “substantial deference” to the trial court's sentencing decision, attempting only “to leaven the outliers” rather than “achieve a perceived ‘correct’ sentence.” Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014) (citation omitted).

[7] In assessing the appropriateness of a sentence, we first look to the statutory range established for that class of offense. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218. Thomas's conviction for possession of cocaine was a Level 5 felony, which has a sentencing range of one to six years and an advisory sentence of three years. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b). Thus, his four-year sentence for this offense is above the advisory but below the maximum. Thomas's conviction for possession of paraphernalia resulted in a 60-day sentence, the maximum for a Class C misdemeanor. SeeInd. Code § 35-50-3-4. However, the trial court ordered the two sentences to run concurrently, thereby minimizing Thomas's total incarceration time. We are not persuaded that this sentence is inappropriate.

[8] Though his offenses were not violent, Thomas was found with a significant quantity of cocaine—7.7 grams total, which is 2.7 grams more than what is necessary to support his conviction. Similarly, he possessed not one but two crack pipes. Therefore, the sheer quantity of contraband he possessed supports a finding that Thomas committed his offenses in an egregious manner. See Guthery v. State, 180 N.E.3d 339, 352 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (“[T]he amount of drugs involved in the offenses was greatly in excess of that required for the offenses, rendering those offenses egregious”).

[9] More significantly, Thomas's extensive criminal history reflects poorly on his character. See Moss v. State, 13 N.E.3d 440, 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (“Even a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendant's character.”). Thomas has seven prior felony convictions, including possession of a controlled substance, robbery, multiple possession of cocaine charges, and forgery. He also has been convicted of six misdemeanors, including false informing, possession of a synthetic drug, and operating under the influence of a controlled substance. Many of Thomas's prior offenses, like his current crimes, involve the possession of controlled substances. See Brattain v. State, 891 N.E.2d 1055, 1058 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (“[T]he significance of previous crimes varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses as they relate to the current offense.”).

[10] Thomas explains that his criminal behavior is largely due to his long-term struggle with substance abuse, and he expresses a desire to seek treatment. But as he acknowledges, Thomas has repeatedly failed to take advantage of numerous opportunities to avoid incarceration and address his addiction. Throughout Thomas's criminal history, his probation and parole were each revoked three times and his otherwise suspended sentences were revoked twice.

[11] Moreover, the trial court deferred convicting Thomas in this case so that he could participate in the drug court diversion program. But Thomas violated program requirements almost immediately—failing a drug screen, absconding from his recovery facility, failing to appear for court, and committing a new crime of dealing cocaine. As the trial court explained, the significant fact was not that Thomas relapsed—as “[t]he whole point of Drug Court is rehabilitation” and upon relapse, the court “would have worked with [him].” Tr. Vol. II, p. 12. The significant fact was that Thomas left treatment and did not return to court until his arrest a year later.

[12] Due in part to this criminal history and pattern of failed attempts at rehabilitation, Thomas's presentence investigation report concluded that he was at a high risk to reoffend. That report ultimately recommended a sentence of four years in the DOC as to the possession of cocaine charge and 60 days for the paraphernalia charge—the same sentence the trial court went on to impose.

[13] Based on this record, Thomas has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. His four-year aggregate sentence properly reflects both the nature of his offenses and his character. We therefore affirm the trial court's sentence.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The record does not specify precisely where the pipe was observed—on Thomas's person, in his vicinity, or elsewhere—only that it was seen while Thomas was retrieving the BB gun.

Weissmann, Judge.

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