HILL v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Bobby Hill appeals his sentence following his convictions for two counts of Level 6 felony the ft. Hill raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] During the evening of December 11, 2023, Hill, driving a maroon Chevrolet Equinox, and Laquresha Myers, sitting in the front passenger seat, were traveling through the Meridian Hills neighborhood in Indianapolis. On two occasions, as Myers waited in the vehicle, Hill stole items from cars parked outside of two houses: a tool bag and bags of groceries. The owners of each car discovered the thefts immediately, and each called 9-1-1.

[4] Officer Paul Twardoski with the nearby Williams Creek Police Department was alerted to the Equinox by a “person waving his arms and pointing” at it. Tr. p. 86. As Officer Twardoski was conducting a traffic stop of Hill, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officers Aaron Duncan and Colin Smillie arrived to assist. Officer Duncan and Officer Smillie placed Hill in handcuffs. During a pat down of Hill's person, Officer Duncan found an empty gun holster on his waistband.

[5] At some point, Officer Duncan looked in the back seat of the Equinox through a window and saw bags of groceries and a tool bag. Officer Duncan then searched the vehicle and found a gun wedged between a front seat and the center console as well as ammunition. Officers also recovered a gun from Myers's purse.

[6] The State charged Hill with Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, three counts of Class A misdemeanor theft, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The State also alleged that each theft count was enhanced to a Level 6 felony based on Hill's prior Class D felony theft conviction. Before trial, the State dismissed one count of theft and the resisting law enforcement count. A jury found Hill guilty of the two counts of Class A misdemeanor theft but acquitted him of the firearm possession count. Hill then pleaded guilty to the enhancement of the theft convictions to Level 6 felonies based on his prior theft conviction.

[7] The trial court entered judgment of conviction on each count and sentenced Hill to consecutive 455-day sentences. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Hill contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him. Sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we review such decisions for an abuse of discretion. Hudson v. State, 135 N.E.3d 973, 979 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “An abuse of discretion will be found where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Id. For example, a trial court may abuse its discretion by:

(1) failing to enter a sentencing statement at all; (2) entering a sentencing statement that includes aggravating and mitigating factors that are unsupported by the record; (3) entering a sentencing statement that omits reasons that are clearly supported by the record; or (4) entering a sentencing statement that includes reasons that are improper as a matter of law.

Id. “In cases where the trial court has abused its discretion, we will remand for resentencing only ‘if we cannot say with confidence that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence had it properly considered reasons that enjoy support in the record.’ ” Bryant v. State, 959 N.E.2d 315, 322 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind.), clarified on reh'g 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007)).

[9] The sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is between six months and two and one-half years, with the advisory sentence being one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7. Here, the trial court identified Hill's criminal history as an aggravating circumstance. Hill's criminal history includes nine felony and multiple misdemeanor convictions as well as one violation of probation. And the court identified Hill's remorse and acceptance of responsibility as mitigating circumstances. The court found that the aggravator outweighed the mitigators and imposed the consecutive 455-day sentences.

[10] The jury convicted Hill of two Class A misdemeanor thefts. Hill then pleaded guilty to the enhancement of those convictions to Level 6 felonies based on his prior theft conviction. On appeal, Hill maintains that his “plea did not provide him with any substantial benefit” and he should have, therefore, “received [a] substantial benefit at sentencing.” Appellant's Br. at 8 (citing Patterson v. State, 846 N.E.2d 723, 729 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)).

[11] It is well settled that “[a] trial court is not obligated to accept the defendant's argument as to what constitutes a mitigating factor, and a trial court is not required to give the same weight to proffered mitigating factors as does a defendant.” Healey v. State, 969 N.E.2d 607, 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. “A trial court does not err in failing to find a mitigating factor where that claim is highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance.” Id. “An allegation that a trial court abused its discretion by failing to identify or find a mitigating factor requires the defendant on appeal to establish that the mitigating evidence is significant and clearly supported by the record.” Id.

[12] As our Supreme Court has acknowledged, “[w]here the State reaps a substantial benefit from the defendant's act of pleading guilty, the defendant deserves to have a substantial benefit returned.” Sensback v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1160, 1164 (Ind. 1999). However, a guilty plea does not rise to the level of significant mitigation where the defendant has received a substantial benefit from the plea or where the evidence against him is such that the decision to plead guilty is merely a pragmatic one. Wells v. State, 836 N.E.2d 475, 479 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. Here, Hill pleaded guilty to the enhancement of his theft convictions based on a prior theft conviction, the evidence for which was well established. Moreover, his plea to the level of the offense occurred only after his jury trial on the misdemeanor offenses.

[13] The trial court found Hill's remorse and acceptance of responsibility to be mitigating circumstances, but it found that his criminal history outweighed those mitigators. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it did not specifically find his guilty plea to be a mitigating circumstance.

[14] For all these reasons, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced Hill.

[15] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

May, J., and Bradford, J., concur.