From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lovell v. State

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jan 29, 2024
No. 23A-CR-1184 (Ind. App. Jan. 29, 2024)

Opinion

23A-CR-1184

01-29-2024

Chasen R. Lovell, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

Attorney for Appellant Aaron J. Spolarich Bennett Boehning & Clary, LLP Lafayette, Indiana Attorneys for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Erica S. Sullivan Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana


Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.

Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court The Honorable Daniel J. Moore, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 79D07-2211-F6-001214

Attorney for Appellant Aaron J. Spolarich Bennett Boehning & Clary, LLP Lafayette, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Erica S. Sullivan Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FELIX, JUDGE

Statement of the Case

[¶1] Chasen R. Lovell was convicted of failure of a sex offender to possess identification with a prior conviction, a Level 6 felony, and sentenced to 545 days in the Indiana Department of Correction ("DOC"). Lovell presents one issue on appeal: whether the trial court issued an inappropriate sentence.

[¶2] We affirm. Facts and Procedural History

[¶3] On November 8, 2022, law enforcement responded to a complaint that a sex offender was living in a house with a nine-year-old child. The officers' investigation revealed that Lovell was not living in the house but that he was a registered sex offender based on two 2014 convictions for child molesting. Lovell told law enforcement that he was living in Kokomo, Indiana, but his Indiana identification card showed a Lafayette, Indiana address. Officers then arrested Lovell for violating the sex offender registry.

[¶4] Lovell was convicted of failure of a sex offender to possess identification with a prior conviction based on a 2019 conviction for failing to possess identification and sentenced to 545 days in DOC. Lovell now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[¶5] Lovell asks us to revise his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) enables us to "revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender." "[T]he principal role of our review is to leaven outliers rather than achieving a perceived correct sentence." Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1197 (Ind. 2021) (quoting State v. Stidham, 157 N.E.3d 1185, 1195 (Ind. 2020)). The defendant has the burden to persuade us that the sentence is inappropriate. Id. (citing McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 554, 566 (Ind. 2018)). The trial court's sentence will prevail unless it is "overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense . . . and the defendant's character." Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[¶6] "Our analysis of the 'nature of the offense' portion of the appropriateness review begins with the advisory sentence." Reis v. State 88 N.E.3d 1099, 1104 (Ind.Ct.App. 2017) (citing Clara v. State, 899 N.E.2d 733, 736 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009)). Lovell was convicted of a Level 6 felony, which has a maximum sentence of two and a half years and an advisory sentence of one year, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b), and the trial court sentenced Lovell to approximately one and a half years. Lovell argues this aggravated sentence was not warranted because the offense did not involve substance abuse or violence. Since Lovell is a sex offender with a previous conviction for failing to possess identification, violence was not a required element of the present offense, and the relevant statute does not mention substance abuse at all. See I.C. § 11-8-8-15(c). We are unpersuaded by Lovell's argument that the nature of the offense deems his sentence inappropriate.

[¶7] Additionally, Lovell's character does not warrant a sentence reduction. Lovell argues that we should revise his sentence because he has accepted responsibility and shown remorse for his actions. His criminal history outweighs any remorse or responsibility for the present offense. Lovell has an extensive criminal history as both a juvenile and an adult. As an adult, Lovell has two convictions for child molesting, two convictions for public intoxication, two convictions for theft, one conviction for auto theft, three convictions for drug-related offenses, one conviction for attempt to commit armed robbery, one conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, and a prior conviction for failure of a sex offender to possess identification. He has multiple violations of probation and has a history of failing to appear.

[¶8] Lovell also asks us to consider the fact that he updated his identification card the day he was released on bond in this case. However, this argument merely shows how simple it would have been for Lovell to update this information and avoid the violation. There is no evidence that Lovell has "substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character," Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122, and we conclude that Lovell's sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character.

[¶9] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and May, J., concur.


Summaries of

Lovell v. State

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jan 29, 2024
No. 23A-CR-1184 (Ind. App. Jan. 29, 2024)
Case details for

Lovell v. State

Case Details

Full title:Chasen R. Lovell, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana…

Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana

Date published: Jan 29, 2024

Citations

No. 23A-CR-1184 (Ind. App. Jan. 29, 2024)