Juma Haywood v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing Jun 09 2017, 9:10 am

the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK Indiana Supreme Court estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Donald C. Swanson, Jr. Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Michael Gene Worden Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Juma Haywood, June 9, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 02A03-1701-CR-165 v. Appeal from the Allen Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D04-1610-F6-1147

Barnes, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1701-CR-165 | June 9, 2017 Page 1 of 6

Case Summary [1] Juma Haywood pled guilty to four counts of Level 6 felony invasion of privacy

and was sentenced to two years imprisonment on each count, to be served

concurrently. Haywood now appeals his sentence. We affirm.

Issues [2] Haywood raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as whether the trial court

imposed an inappropriate sentence in light of the nature of the offense and

Haywood’s character.

Facts [3] On October 14, 2016, Haywood was charged with four counts of Level 6 felony

invasion of privacy. On October 18, 2016, a no contact order was issued,

barring Haywood from contacting the victim, H. H. On October 24, 2016,

H.H. wrote a letter to the court expressing her intentions to continue a

relationship between herself and Haywood, further stating that Haywood was

no longer a threat to her or her children. H.H. also requested that the no

contact order be terminated. On December 14, 2016, without the benefit of a

plea agreement, Haywood pled guilty to all four counts. During the sentencing

hearing, on January 12, 2017, H.H. stated that she “made it possible for Mr.

Haywood to call [her] and that, when all this is said and done, that [she] still

[planned] on pursuing a relationship.” Tr. p. 5. Also during the hearing,

Haywood apologized to the court for violating the no contact order and stated

that “it’s kind of hard to not contact the person when you’re in love with the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1701-CR-165 | June 9, 2017 Page 2 of 6

person.” Id. at 6. Haywood also stated that “she [H.H.] helps me get myself

together since my mother died and everything.” Id. After evidence and

arguments were presented, the trial court concluded that Haywood’s criminal

history, consisting of four juvenile adjudications, thirteen misdemeanors, and

eight prior felony convictions, along with the fact that he was on probation

when the current offenses were committed, were all aggravating circumstances.

The court also stated that it found Haywood’s guilty plea, expression of

remorse, and the victim’s statements to be mitigating circumstances. Given the

aggravating circumstances, the trial court sentenced Haywood to two years

imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently. The trial court also

ordered that the no contact order be terminated.

Analysis [4] Haywood contends that the trial court erred when it “handed down an

aggravated sentence where the entirety of the [offensive] conduct was

consensual telephone conversations.” Appellant’s Br. p. 5. We will assess

whether Haywood’s sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule

7(B) in light of his character and the nature of the offense. See Anglemyer v.

State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007). Although Rule 7(B) does not require us

to be “extremely” deferential to a trial court’s sentencing decision, we still must

give due consideration to that decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873

(Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We also understand and recognize the unique perspective

a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a defendant

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1701-CR-165 | June 9, 2017 Page 3 of 6

bears the burden of persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is

inappropriate.” Id. [5] The principal role of Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the

outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged

with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived

‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind.

2008). We “should focus on the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than

the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the

sentence on any individual count.” Id. Whether a sentence is inappropriate

ultimately turns on 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. Id. at 1224. When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence

under Rule 7(B), we may consider all aspects of the penal consequences

imposed by the trial court in sentencing the defendant, including whether a

portion of the sentence was suspended. Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023,

1025 (Ind. 2010). [6] Haywood argues that “the nature and circumstances surrounding the offense in

this case shows that an enhanced and executed sentence of four years is

inappropriate.” Appellant’s Br. p. 9. When considering the nature of the

offense, the advisory sentence is the starting point to determine the

appropriateness of a sentence. Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852, 856 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2013). Haywood pled guilty to four counts of Level 6 felony invasion of

privacy. The sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is between six months and

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1701-CR-165 | June 9, 2017 Page 4 of 6

two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment, with one year being the advisory sentence.

Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-7(b). The trial court sentenced Haywood to two

years imprisonment for each count to be served concurrently, rather than

consecutively. The trial court’s sentence was entirely within the range allowed

by the statute. [7] Regarding the nature of Haywood’s offense, although contact with the victim

may have been consensual, his arguments disregard the fact that he expressly

violated a court order on multiple occasions. To the extent Haywood argues

that H.H.’s actions invited his violation of the protective order, this court has

held that an invitation by the victim does not waive or nullify an order for

protection. Smith v. State, 999 N.E.2d 914, 918 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) trans.

denied. [8] When considering Haywood’s character, we cannot say that the sentence

imposed by the trial court was inappropriate. Haywood has four adjudications

as a juvenile, thirteen misdemeanor convictions, and eight prior felony

convictions. He was also on probation at the time of these offenses. The

significance of a criminal history in assessing a defendant’s character and an

appropriate sentence varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior

offenses in relation to the current offense. Rutherford, 866 N.E.2d at 874.

Haywood contends that “the more recent convictions are far less severe than his

early-life conduct; [and that] from 2007 on, Haywood has no conviction or

charge above a Level 6 felony. Of those, all but two are either driving offenses

or drug charges, which bear no similarity to the current conviction.”

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1701-CR-165 | June 9, 2017 Page 5 of 6

Appellant’s Br. p. 11. Although it is true that Haywood has not received a

conviction above a Level 6 felony since 2007, and that his recent offenses have

been “less severe,” Haywood’s frequent contacts with the criminal justice

system show that he has not been deterred or rehabilitated from breaking the

law. See Garcia v. State, 47 N.E.3d 1249, 1251-1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)

(defendant’s sixty-six month sentence was not inappropriate in light of his

character and his failure to reform himself). Haywood has not met his burden

of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the

offenses and his character.

Conclusion [9] The sentence imposed by the trial court was not inappropriate in light of the

nature of the offense and Haywood’s character. We affirm the decision of the

trial court. [10] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1701-CR-165 | June 9, 2017 Page 6 of 6