COOLEY v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Monique Lashae Cooley appeals her sentence for murder. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 7, 2023, Cooley and Michael Hess, Jr., were at a house in Indianapolis, which was “sort of a neighborhood hang out,” where they argued about money. Transcript Volume III at 6. Hess's nephew, C.T., was in Hess's vehicle. Cooley was “[a]ggressive,” “angry,” and “wouldn't stop arguing and hollering” at Hess. Id. at 11. Cooley began “waiving [sic] a gun around.” Id. at 12. Hess walked to and entered his car, C.T. was in the car, and Cooley was “walking after [Hess] with the gun” and “yelling you all better get that kid out of the car ․ because I'm going to shoot him.” Id.

[3] Hess drove to his aunt's house, and Cooley followed him in her vehicle. Hess's aunt was in her front yard with her grandchildren when Hess and Cooley arrived. Hess's aunt saw that Cooley was upset with Hess, and his aunt “was trying to defuse the situation.” Id. at 59. Hess's aunt heard Cooley state, “[i]f you ride with him, you riding with a dead man.”¹ Id. at 58. Cooley said, “[y]ou thought you were safe.” Id. at 59. Hess was “holding onto the kid,” Cooley stated, “pull the kid away, I'm going to shoot him,” and “[a]s the kid got pulled away, she shot” Hess. Transcript Volume II at 166. Cooley fired two additional shots which missed Hess. Cooley entered her vehicle and drove away. An eyewitness called 911. Hess died as result of his injuries.

[4] The State charged Cooley with murder. It further alleged that Cooley knowingly or intentionally used a firearm in the commission of the offense and that she was an habitual offender. The court held a jury trial. At one point, the prosecutor stated “[Cooley] is looking at the gallery to the victim's family, making comments and facial expressions” and “according to the detective, she made the comment, ‘I'll be out,’ to the family.” Transcript Volume III at 110. The jury found Cooley guilty of murder. After the court read the verdict and started to discuss setting a sentencing hearing, Cooley stated, “[y]our baby daddy still dead, b----,” “engaged in a verbal confrontation with members in the gallery,” and was “removed by the sheriff.” Id. at 169. The court found that Cooley used a firearm in the commission of the murder and was an habitual offender.

[5] At sentencing, Cooley's counsel presented the testimony of a social work supervisor with the Marion County Public Defender Agency regarding Cooley's diagnosis of Bipolar I disorder and how the disorder may impact her behavior. The court found the mitigating circumstances included that Cooley had family support, she did not have the benefit of having a father in her life, and she had some medical challenges including asthma. It further stated that Cooley “does have significant mental health history and issues,” “the Court does note that that's a mitigating circumstance,” and “bipolar ․ is not a major contributor to criminal behavior, unlike, perhaps, schizophrenia and issues of insanity. It is a mental health situation that is capable of being treated. But she does have a significant history of that.” Id. at 216-217.

[6] The court found the aggravating circumstances included Cooley's criminal history. The court stated that her first felony conviction as an adult was for criminal recklessness in 2011, “[t]he Court notes that she was assigned mental health treatment at that time, was unsuccessful being placed on probation with mental health treatment [and], ultimately, was revoked,” and she was convicted of intimidation in 2013 and “again, given an opportunity for mental health treatment with that sentence.” Id. at 218. It found that she had a felony conviction for pointing a firearm in 2017, “she was given an opportunity to be placed on mental health probation,” and, “[a]gain, probation was revoked.” Id. The court further found Cooley “committed this violent act in the presence of the victim's young nephew, as well as other children being present.” Id. at 219. It stated that it “also notes as aggravating circumstances, [Cooley's] behavior in court” and that, despite receiving mental health treatment and medication, she “still engaged in significant anti-social behavior in terms of her reaction to the verdict, her taunting of the gallery after the verdict was taken, to the point where [she] had to be removed from the courtroom.” Id.

[7] The court sentenced Cooley to sixty-two years for murder. It enhanced the sentence by ten years due to her use of a firearm in the commission of the crime. It also enhanced the sentence by six years due to her being an habitual offender. Thus, the court sentenced Cooley to a total term of seventy-eight years.

Discussion

[8] Cooley argues that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and her character under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). She argues that “most of her prior convictions are for misdemeanors and low level felonies” and “she has a long history of serious, poorly-treated, mental illness that played a significant role in the instant offense as well as her past offenses.” Appellant's Brief at 8-9. The State maintains that Cooley's sentence is not inappropriate. It argues that Cooley shot Hess while C.T. watched. It argues that she “made faces at [Hess's] family during the trial” and told his widow “Your baby daddy still dead, b----.” Appellee's Brief at 12 (citing Transcript Volume III at 169). It argues that Cooley had nine prior felonies, ten misdemeanors, ten jail incidents, and two juvenile adjudications. It also argues that Cooley was offered mental health treatment in the past and failed to take advantage of the services.

[9] Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, [we find] that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Under this rule, the burden is on the defendant to persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Whether a sentence is inappropriate “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).

[10] Ind. Code § 35-50-2-3 provides that a person who commits murder shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between forty-five and sixty-five years with the advisory sentence being fifty-five years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-11 provides that, if a person used a firearm in the commission of an offense under that section, the court may sentence the person to an additional fixed term of imprisonment of between five years and twenty years. At the time of the offense, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 provided that the court shall sentence a person found to be an habitual offender to an additional fixed term that is between six and twenty years for a person convicted of murder.²

[11] Our review of the nature of the offense reveals that Cooley had an argument with Hess, followed Hess to his aunt's house, and ultimately shot Hess, killing him. At sentencing, the trial court stated that Cooley “committed this violent act in the presence of the victim's young nephew, as well as other children being present.” Transcript Volume III at 219. C.T.’s mother stated that C.T.’s behavior changed after the murder and that he was in therapy. Hess had three daughters, and his oldest daughter read a statement providing “[y]ou took my daddy, my best friend.” Id. at 197.

[12] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Cooley's criminal history includes prior felony convictions for criminal recklessness, intimidation, battery, pointing a firearm, possession of a narcotic drug, residential entry, and resisting law enforcement as well as misdemeanor convictions. The presentence investigation report (“PSI”) indicates Cooley reported that she received a mental health evaluation when she was younger and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and depression, that she takes medication for her mental health, and that she participated in, but did not complete, anger control counseling approximately ten years earlier. The PSI indicates that Cooley's overall risk assessment score using the Indiana risk assessment tool places her in the high risk to reoffend category. We also note Cooley's conduct at trial reflects poorly on her character. After due consideration, we conclude that Cooley has not sustained her burden of establishing that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and her character.³

[13] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Cooley's sentence for murder.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Hess's aunt testified “I'm almost thinking she's saying it to the baby or just out loud.” Transcript Volume III at 58.

2.   Subsequently amended by Pub. Law No. 37-2023, § 2 (eff. July 1, 2023).

3.   To the extent Cooley argues the trial court abused its discretion by failing to give proper weight to her mental health issues, we need not address this issue because we find that her sentence is not inappropriate. See Chappell v. State, 966 N.E.2d 124, 134 n.10 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (noting that any error in failing to consider defendant's guilty plea as a mitigating factor is harmless if sentence is not inappropriate) (citing Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504, 507 (Ind. 2007) (holding that, in the absence of a proper sentencing order, Indiana appellate courts may either remand for resentencing or exercise their authority to review the sentence pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)), reh'g denied; Mendoza v. State, 869 N.E.2d 546, 556 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (noting that, “even if the trial court is found to have abused its discretion in the process it used to sentence the defendant, the error is harmless if the sentence imposed was not inappropriate”), trans. denied), trans. denied. Even if we were to address Cooley's abuse of discretion argument, we would not find it persuasive. The trial court found Cooley's mental health history and issues to be a mitigating circumstance and balanced the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in rendering its sentence. The relative weight or value assignable to reasons properly found or those which should have been found is not subject to review for abuse of discretion. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218. See Rogers v. State, 878 N.E.2d 269, 272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (trial court not required to give same weight to proffered mitigating factors as does defendant), trans. denied.

Brown, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.