Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 06-19-2020
Case Style:
John Reynolds v. State of Indiana
Case Number: 19A-CR-2882
Judge: Elaine B. Brown
Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Plaintiff's Attorney: Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Attorney General of Indiana
Evan Matthew Comer
Deputy Attorney General
Defendant's Attorney:
Need help finding a lawyer for representation for appealing convictions and sentence for possession of methamphetamine, maintaining a common nuisance, unlawful possession of a syringe, possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, resisting law enforcement, and possession of marijuana in Indiana?
Call 918-582-6422. It's Free
Description:
 |
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
John Reynolds appeals his convictions and sentence for possession of
methamphetamine as a level 5 felony, maintaining a common nuisance as a
level 6 felony, unlawful possession of a syringe as a level 6 felony, possession of
marijuana as a class A misdemeanor, possession of paraphernalia as a class C
misdemeanor, resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor, and
possession of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor. He asserts the trial court
erred in accepting his guilty plea and his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On November 3, 2018, Reynolds possessed methamphetamine, pure or
adulterated, having a weight of less than five grams. He maintained a building
or structure for the unlawful use, manufacture, keeping, sale, or delivery of
controlled substances or items of drug paraphernalia. He possessed a
hypodermic syringe or needle with the intent to introduce a controlled
substance into his body. He also possessed marijuana and an instrument,
device, or object, that d resisted, obstructed, or interfered with Indiana State
Police Officer Russell Werkmeister while he was engaged in his duties as a law
enforcement officer.
[3] On November 5, 2018, the State charged Reynolds under cause number 65C01-
1811-F5-483 (“Cause No. 483”) with: Count I, possession of methamphetamine
as a level 5 felony; Count II, maintaining a common nuisance as a level 6
felony; Count III, unlawful possession of a syringe as a level 6 felony; Count
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2882| June 19, 2020 Page 3 of 7
IV, possession of marijuana as a class A misdemeanor; and Count V,
possession of paraphernalia as a class C misdemeanor. On April 15, 2019, the
State charged Reynolds under cause number 65C01-1904-CM-156 (“Cause No.
156”) with: Count I, resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor; and
Count II, possession of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor.
[4] On October 22, 2019, the court held a hearing in Cause Nos. 483 and 156.
Reynolds’s counsel indicated Reynolds wished to plead guilty without a
recommendation from the State. Reynolds answered affirmatively when asked
by the court if he intended to plead guilty without a recommendation. He pled
guilty as charged and the court found that a factual basis existed.
[5] On November 19, 2019, the court held a sentencing hearing. Under Cause
Nos. 483 and 156, it found that Reynolds pled guilty as a mitigating factor and
found his extensive criminal history and that he committed the present offenses
while on bond as aggravating factors. Under Cause No. 483, the court
sentenced Reynolds to five years for Count I, two years for Count II, two years
for Count III, one year for Count IV, and sixty days for Count V. The court
ordered that the sentences run concurrent with each other and consecutive to
the sentence in Cause No. 156. Under Cause No. 156, the court sentenced
Reynolds to one year for Count I and 180 days for Count II and ordered the
sentences to be served concurrent with each other.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2882| June 19, 2020 Page 4 of 7
Discussion
[6] Reynolds argues that his statements at the guilty plea hearing fail to establish
his guilt and that he merely pled guilty because he was angry and frustrated by
the process and the offer made by the State in its sentencing recommendation.
The State argues that Reynolds forfeited any challenge to his underlying
convictions on direct appeal because he pled guilty.
[7] Because Reynolds pled guilty, he cannot challenge the propriety of his
convictions on direct appeal. See Hayes v. State, 906 N.E.2d 819, 820-821 (Ind.
2009) (observing that the defendant submitted an “open” guilty plea and
holding that “he did not (and under Tumulty v. State, [666 N.E.2d 394 (Ind.
1996),] could not), appeal his convictions”) (footnote omitted); Collins v. State,
817 N.E.2d 230, 231 (Ind. 2004) (“A person who pleads guilty is not permitted
to challenge the propriety of that conviction on direct appeal.”); Tumulty, 666
N.E.2d at 395 (observing that the defendant told the trial court he wished to
plead guilty to all counts and replied affirmatively when the trial court asked if
he was leaving sentencing up to the court, and holding that “[o]ne consequence
of pleading guilty is restriction of the ability to challenge the conviction on
direct appeal”). Rather, the appropriate forum is post-conviction relief. See Hall
v. State, 849 N.E.2d 466, 472 (Ind. 2006) (“[B]ecause a conviction imposed as a
result of a guilty plea is not an issue that is available to a defendant on direct
appeal, any challenge to a conviction thus imposed must be made through the
procedure afforded by the Indiana Rules of Procedure for Post-Conviction
Remedies.”); Tumulty, 666 N.E.2d at 396 (holding that post-conviction relief
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2882| June 19, 2020 Page 5 of 7
was exactly the vehicle for pursuing the defendant’s claim). Accordingly, we
dismiss Reynolds’s appeal as it relates to his challenge of his convictions. See
Crain v. State, 875 N.E.2d 446, 447 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (dismissing defendant’s
appeal because his claim must be brought through a petition for post-conviction
relief).
[8] We next turn to whether Reynolds’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the
nature of the offenses and his character. Reynolds argues that his sentence is
inappropriate because he pled guilty and is a seventy-year-old man with health
conditions.
[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).
[10] Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 provides that a person who commits a level 5 felony shall
be imprisoned for a fixed term of between one and six years, with the advisory
sentence being three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7 provides that a person who
commits a level 6 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between six
months and two and one-half years, with the advisory sentence being one year.
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. A person who commits
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2882| June 19, 2020 Page 6 of 7
a class B misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than
180 days. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-3. A person who commits a class C
misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than sixty days.
Ind. Code § 35-50-3-4.
[11] Our review of the nature of the offenses reveals that Reynolds maintained a
building or structure for the unlawful use, manufacture, keeping, sale, or
delivery of controlled substances or items of drug paraphernalia. He possessed:
methamphetamine, pure or adulterated, having a weight of less than five grams;
a hypodermic syringe or needle with the intent to introduce a controlled
substance into his body; marijuana; and an instrument, device, or object, that
being straws, pipes, and/or grinders, with the intent to introduce a controlled
substance into his body. He also possessed marijuana and resisted, obstructed,
or interfered with Indiana State Police Officer Werkmeister while he was
engaged in his duties as a law enforcement officer.
[12] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Reynolds pled guilty as
charged. The presentence investigation report (“PSI”) reveals that Reynolds
was born in 1948, suffers from a nerve issue that causes facial pain, had back
surgery in 2014 which did not resolve the problem, still is in pain, and suffered
head trauma when he was eight years old resulting in a lack of grip strength in
his left hand. As a juvenile, Reynolds received his first charge in 1964 at the
age of fifteen “when he was charged with a misdemeanor and a felony, and was
ultimately sentenced to serve time in Juvenile Hall.” Appellant’s Appendix
Volume II at 115. During the next two years, Reynolds “received two
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2882| June 19, 2020 Page 7 of 7
additional misdemeanor charges and three additional felony charges.” Id.
According to the PSI, as an adult, Reynolds had been convicted of second
degree murder and “an additional eight felonies (five of his prior felony charges
have unknown outcomes, so he potentially has up to thirteen prior felony
convictions).” Id. He has “one known prior misdemeanor conviction and three
misdemeanor charges with unknown outcomes.” Id. The PSI indicates he had
previously been sentenced to probation on three occasions and revoked once,
and has been on parole three times and “committed a new offense while out on
bond in this case.” Id. at 116. The PSI also indicates that Reynolds stated he
first tried methamphetamine at the age of twenty, stated that he used it on a
regular basis prior to his incarceration in 2003, and denied using it on a regular
basis since he was released in 2014. The PSI further provides that Reynolds’s
overall risk assessment score using the Indiana Risk Assessment System places
him in the very high risk to reoffend category.
[13] After due consideration, we conclude that Reynolds has not sustained his
burden of establishing that his aggregate sentence of six years for his seven
convictions is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his
character.
Outcome: For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Reynolds’s sentence.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: