Daniel Shoffner v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 17 2019, 10:27 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE James Harper Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Harper & Harper, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Valparaiso, Indiana Justin F. Roebel Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Daniel Shoffner, December 17, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-360 v. Appeal from the LaPorte Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Thomas Alevizos, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 46C01-1406-MR-219

May, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-360 | December 17, 2019 Page 1 of 7 [1] Daniel Shoffner appeals his sentence for Class A felony voluntary

manslaughter. 1 He asserts his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of

his offense and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On or about June 13, 2014, Daniel Shoffner and his girlfriend Birdie Elder were

drinking at their house in LaPorte, Indiana. They were upstairs and got into an

argument about Elder’s family. Shoffner used a pocketknife to stab Elder in the

neck, in the chest, and on the hand that Elder used to try to block his thrusts.

Elder collapsed, and Shoffner held her for ten to twenty minutes until she

stopped breathing. He then dragged her body down the stairs and placed her

body in a chest freezer on the back porch. [3] Shoffner attempted to commit suicide by taking Elder’s Xanax pills, shooting

insulin into his stomach, and cutting his wrists. He later went to the hospital

and received stitches for the cuts on his wrists. On June 15, 2014, Shoffner

called his daughter and told her he had killed Elder. Shoffner’s daughter called

911. Officers responded to Shoffner’s house, found Elder’s body in the freezer,

and arrested Shoffner.

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-1-3 (1997).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-360 | December 17, 2019 Page 2 of 7 [4] The State charged Shoffner with murder. 2 Shoffner filed a notice of insanity

defense and a motion for psychiatric examination. Doctors evaluated Shoffner

to determine his competency to stand trial and his ability to appreciate the

wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offense. On November 16, 2018,

the parties entered an agreement whereby Shoffner would plead guilty but

mentally ill to voluntary manslaughter and, in exchange, his sentence would

not exceed forty years, with a maximum of thirty-five years executed. [5] At sentencing, the trial court found Shoffner’s extensive criminal history to be

an aggravating circumstance. The court also found as additional aggravating

circumstances that Shoffner was in a position of trust to the victim, the victim

was of advanced age, and Shoffner was out on bond when he killed Elder. The

court found Shoffner’s guilty plea to be a mitigating factor. The trial court also

found Shoffner’s history of mental illness to be a mitigating factor, but only

“slightly mitigating because he’s already been given somewhat [of] a break . . .

because of the nature of his plea.” (Tr. Vol. II at 89.) The court sentenced

Shoffner to forty years in the Indiana Department of Correction, with thirty-five

years executed and five years suspended to probation.

Discussion and Decision

2 Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 (2007).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-360 | December 17, 2019 Page 3 of 7 [6] After due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we may revise a sentence

authorized by statute if the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the

offense and the character of the offender. Ind. App. R. 7(B). Our role in

reviewing a sentence pursuant to Appellate Rule 7(B) “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). “The defendant bears the burden of persuading this court that his

or her sentence is inappropriate.” Kunberger v. State, 46 N.E.3d 966, 972 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2015). “Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on the

culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to

others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.”

Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). [7] A Class A felony is punishable by a fixed term between twenty and fifty years,

with an advisory sentence of thirty years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4. Shoffner’s

plea agreement provided he would plead guilty but mentally ill to Class A

felony voluntary manslaughter, and in exchange his sentence would not exceed

forty years, with the executed portion of the sentence not to exceed thirty-five

years. The trial court imposed a sentence that was within the range allowed by

statute and above the advisory sentence. It was the maximum sentence that

could be imposed consistent with his plea agreement. Shoffner asks us to revise

his sentence downward to the advisory sentence of thirty years.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-360 | December 17, 2019 Page 4 of 7 [8] The nature of Shoffner’s offense was serious and heinous. Elder allowed

Shoffner to stay in her house because he did not have another place to live.

Shoffner was a six-foot-one, 250-pound, middle-age male, and Elder was an

elderly woman. Shoffner stabbed her multiple times, while she tried to stop

him. He did not notify authorities or seek medical help for Shoffner after he

stabbed her. Instead, he held her for ten to twenty minutes until she died. Even

after she died, he did not notify authorities. Rather, he placed her body in a

chest freezer and left her body there for days. The coroner had to wait two days

for Elder’s body to thaw before performing the autopsy. The nature of

Shoffner’s offense merits a sentence above the advisory. See Reis v. State, 88

N.E.3d 1099, 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (holding egregious nature of

defendant’s offense supported near-maximum sentence) [9] Shoffner argues he deserves a lesser sentence because of his long-standing

history of schizophrenia. Our Indiana Supreme Court has directed trial courts

to “carefully consider on the record what mitigating weight, if any, to accord to

any evidence of mental illness, even though there is no obligation to give the

evidence the same weight the defendant does.” Weeks v. State, 697 N.E.2d 28,

30 (Ind. 1998). The court should look to the defendant’s ability to control his

behavior, limitations on defendant’s functioning, the duration of the illness, and

the nexus between the illness and commission of the crime. Id. Shoffner’s

medical records indicate he was diagnosed with schizophrenia at age eighteen.

He sought treatment for the condition at various times throughout his life. In

fact, in May 2014, shortly before Elder’s death, Shoffner contacted a medical

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-360 | December 17, 2019 Page 5 of 7

services provider and requested medication, but the provider denied his request

because he had been absent from treatment for eight months. [10] It is unclear to what extent Shoffner’s illness minimizes his culpability. He was

voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the offense, and he had discontinued

treatment months before committing the offense. In speaking with detectives,

Shoffner described the offense in a lucid manner. However, during one mental

health evaluation, Shoffner told the psychologist he did not remember the

killing because he was too intoxicated at the time of the offense. In two other

mental health examinations, he told the evaluators that he experienced auditory

and visual hallucinations at the time of the offense and believed Elder was

possessed by demons when he killed her. [11] Further, the trial court found Shoffner’s mental illness to be a mitigating factor,

but the court described it as a “slight mitigator” because Shoffner’s plea

agreement provided some leniency. (Appellant App. Vol. III at 76.) Shoffner

was originally charged with murder, but he pled guilty to the lesser charge of

voluntary manslaughter, and his plea agreement limited the executed portion of

his sentence to thirty-five years. Thus, Shoffner’s mental illness does not render

his sentence inappropriate. See Salyers v. State, 862 N.E.2d 650, 654 (Ind. 2007)

(holding sentence of life without parole was appropriate for defendant that

suffered from mental illness and pled guilty but mentally ill to killing a police

officer).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-360 | December 17, 2019 Page 6 of 7 [12] Additionally, Shoffner’s significant criminal history reflects poorly on his

character. He has two previous felony convictions and thirteen pervious

misdemeanor convictions. These convictions include battery, theft, and

criminal recklessness. He also has a history of not complying with conditions

of probation or community corrections. At the time he committed the instant

offense, he was out on bond for charges of theft and operating a vehicle while

intoxicated. Therefore, we hold Shoffner’s sentence is not inappropriate given

the nature of his offense and his character. See Norris v. State, 113 N.E.3d 1245,

1256-57 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (holding sentence was not inappropriate,

particularly considering defendant’s extensive criminal history), reh’g denied,

trans. denied.

Conclusion [13] Shoffner murdered an elderly woman after she allowed him to stay with her.

He stabbed her multiple times, dragged her body down a set of stairs, and

stuffed her body into a freezer. The trial court considered Shoffner’s history of

mental illness but gave it little weight because of the nature of Shoffner’s plea

agreement. His criminal history was extensive, including multiple previous

convictions involving violence. We cannot say his sentence is inappropriate

given the nature of his offense and his character, and accordingly we affirm. [14] Affirmed.

Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-360 | December 17, 2019 Page 7 of 7