Opinion
24A-CR-1346
12-18-2024
Matthew R. Thompson, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
Attorney for Appellant Donald R. Shuler Barkes, Kolbus, Rife & Shuler, LLP Goshen, Indiana Attorneys for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana Sierra A. Murray 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Elkhart Circuit Court The Honorable Michael A. Christofeno, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 20C01-2308-MR-4
Attorney for Appellant Donald R. Shuler Barkes, Kolbus, Rife & Shuler, LLP Goshen, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Sierra A. Murray Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
MAY, JUDGE
[¶1] Matthew R. Thompson appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction of murder. Thompson raises one issue for our review, which we restate as whether his sixty-five-year sentence is inappropriate given the nature of his offense and his character. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] Thompson and Ciarra Thompson ("Ciarra") married in 2015. Thompson physically and emotionally abused Ciarra throughout the marriage, and in August 2023, Ciarra told Thompson she wanted to divorce him. After that conversation, Ciarra told her mother, Carrie Miller, that "she had never been happier or felt freer than she had that day." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 44.)
[¶3] On August 19, 2023, Miller attempted to call Ciarra several times, but each time she called, Thompson answered Ciarra's phone and explained that Ciarra was unavailable. When Miller called Ciarra's phone at 6:45 p.m., Thompson said that Ciarra was asleep. Miller insisted she be permitted to speak with Ciarra, and Thompson then said that Ciarra was not responding when he tried to wake her. Miller told Thompson that he needed to call 911 and that she would call herself if he did not. Miller left her house to travel to Thompson's house, and Thompson called 911. By the time Miller arrived at Thompson's house, an ambulance and the police had already arrived.
[¶4] Patrol officers with the Elkhart Police Department responded to Thompson's 911 call and discovered Ciarra in the kitchen. Ciarra was "deceased and it appeared as though she had been battered and stabbed." (App. Vol. 2 at 20.) The officers contacted detectives with the Elkhart County Homicide Unit, and they arrived at the scene. The detectives observed "a large amount of blood saturating the couch in the living room" and blood on numerous other surfaces in the living room. (Id.) The detectives also discovered several open wounds on Ciarra's head and neck, and it appeared to them that someone had tried to clean up some of the blood in the living room and kitchen before the officers arrived.
[¶5] Thompson agreed to be interviewed at the police station. The detectives read Thompson his Miranda rights, and he waived those rights. Thompson initially denied hurting Ciarra but acknowledged attempting to clean up some of the blood. Thompson later admitted hurting Ciarra on August 18, 2024, by punching and shaking her, but Thompson "stated that after his last punch to Ciarra, she struck the back of her head on the kitchen counter before falling to the kitchen floor." (Id.) Thompson "also advised that during the time that he and Ciarra were in the residence that no one else came or left from the residence." (Id.)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), reh'g denied.
[¶6] Dr. Harris Iqbal performed Ciarra's autopsy on August 21, 2023. Dr. Iqbal observed multiple stab and chop wounds on both sides of Ciarra's head. He noted several deep lacerations on the back of Ciarra's head as well as an incision on the back of her neck. Her skull was fractured due to blunt force trauma, and she had multiple abrasions and contusions on her upper and lower extremities. One of Ciarra's front teeth was fractured and there were additional abrasions inside her mouth suggesting she might have been suffocated. Dr. Iqbal concluded that Ciarra's death was a homicide caused by her multiple injuries.
[¶7] On August 22, 2023, the State charged Thompson with murder. On April 17, 2024, Thompson moved to withdraw his not guilty plea and enter a plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement whereby the State agreed that he would not receive a sentence greater than fifty years. However, at a hearing on Thompson's motion the next day, Thompson asserted that he wished to proceed with his jury trial and withdrew his motion to withdraw.
[¶8] On May 6, 2024, Thompson's jury trial began. On the second day of Thompson's trial, Thompson informed the trial court of his desire to plead guilty. Thompson entered a plea of guilty and left his sentence to the sole discretion of the trial court. The trial court scheduled Thompson's sentencing hearing for May 23, 2024.
[¶9] At the sentencing hearing, Thompson gave a statement of allocution in which he claimed that he "helped shape [Ciarra] into a productive member of society by supporting her in everything she wanted to do[.]" (Tr. Vol. 2 at 58.) He accused Ciarra of cheating on him and stated: "Actions have consequences. Cheating is not acceptable, whether it's 1950 or 2024. It's not acceptable." (Id. at 59.) Thompson also asserted Ciarra complained about him attending child support hearings and visiting with his son, so he "chose [his] wife over [his] son." (Id. at 61.) Thompson explained that he took fifty-three Adderall pills on August 18, 2023, and he stated: "After me and Ciarra got into it, and I struck her in the head twice, I remember nothing." (Id.) Toward the end of his statement of allocution, Thompson also said: "So, I mean, 65 would be - I can say it would be acceptable. I mean, that - there's nothing to argue with that." (Id. at 64.)
[¶10] The trial court found as mitigating factors that Thompson accepted responsibility by pleading guilty and expressing regret in his statement of allocution, but the trial court also noted that some of Thompson's statements "showed absolutely no remorse." (Id. at 66.) The trial court also found Thompson's mental health issues, which included post-traumatic stress disorder, and his military service to be mitigating factors. With respect to aggravating factors, the trial court noted Thompson's criminal history, his untreated substance abuse issues, and his failure to take advantage of the rehabilitative programming and alternative sanctions offered to him in the past. The trial court also found the fact that Thompson's wife was his victim to be an aggravating circumstance. In addition, the trial court found as aggravating factors that Thompson "tortured" Ciarra prior to her death and that he failed to render any aid or assistance to her. (Id. at 68.) The trial court then sentenced Thompson to a sixty-five-year term in the Indiana Department of Correction.
Discussion and Decision
[¶11] Thompson contends his sentence is inappropriate given the nature of his offense and his character. Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), we may revise a sentence "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 character of the offender." "Our review is deferential to the trial court's decision, and our goal is to determine whether the appellant's sentence is inappropriate, not whether some other sentence would be more appropriate." George v. State, 141 N.E.3d 68, 73 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020), trans. denied. The appellant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate, and we may look at any factors appearing in the record to assess the nature of the offense and offender's character. Id. Our determination "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). As our Indiana Supreme Court has explained, "compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant's character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character)" may lead to a downward revision of the defendant's sentence. Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).
The State asserts Thompson waived his right to challenge his sentence pursuant to Appellate Rule 7(B). The State notes that Thompson's motion to change his plea filed on May 7, 2024, was identical to the motion to change his plea Thompson filed on April 17, 2024, except that the May 7, 2024, motion did not include a provision limiting the maximum sentence the court could impose. The State points out that both motions included Thompson's initials next to a paragraph stating he waived appellate review of his sentence pursuant to Appellate Rule 7(B), and thus, the State argues, Thompson's challenge is waived. However, while Thompson's May 7, 2024, motion to change his plea was styled as a motion to change his plea pursuant to a plea agreement, it was actually a notice of his intention to enter an open guilty plea. Sentencing was left to the sole discretion of the trial court, and Thompson received nothing by way of the agreement that he was not otherwise entitled to receive. It is a fundamental principle of contract law that "a promise must be predicated upon adequate consideration before it can command performance." Doe v. Roman Cath. Archdiocese of Indianapolis, 958 N.E.2d 472, 477 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011). Therefore, Thompson is not bound by the provision waiving his right to challenge his sentence pursuant to Appellate Rule 7(B), and his challenge is not waived. See, e.g., Peters v. Kendall, 999 N.E.2d 1030, 1035-36 (Ind.Ct.App. 2014) (holding release of liability was not a binding contract due to a lack of consideration), reh'g denied, trans. denied.
[¶12] "When considering the nature of the offense, we first look to the advisory sentence for the crime." McHenry v. State, 152 N.E.3d 41, 46 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020). When a sentence deviates from the advisory sentence, "we consider whether there is anything more or less egregious about the offense as committed by the defendant that distinguishes it from the typical offense accounted for by our legislature when it set the advisory sentence." Madden v. State, 162 N.E.3d 549, 564 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021). Unless the State elects to seek a death sentence or a sentence of life without parole, murder is punishable by "a fixed term of between forty-five (45) and sixty-five (65) years, with the advisory sentence being fifty-five (55) years." Ind. Code § 35-50-2-3. Thompson's sixty-five-year sentence thus represents the maximum sentence the trial court could have imposed.
[¶13] "The maximum possible sentences are generally most appropriate for the worst offenders." Wells v. State, 904 N.E.2d 265, 274 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009), trans. denied. However, that does not mean the maximum possible sentence is only reserved for situations where a worse offender cannot be imagined because it will always be possible to imagine a worse offender. Id. Rather, "[i]n stating that maximum sentences are ordinarily appropriate for the worst offenders, we refer generally to the class of offenses and offenders that warrant the maximum punishment." Id.
[¶14] Thompson's murder of Ciarra was horrific. The crime scene and autopsy photographs document the severity of Ciarra's injuries, and they are disturbing. Thompson hit and stabbed Ciarra repeatedly in the head, resulting in deep wounds and "essentially fractur[ing] pretty much every bone in Ciarra's skull[.]" (Tr. Vol. 2 at 53.) Ciarra lost so much blood that the detectives found "blood saturating the couch in the living room" and on numerous other surfaces in the living room and kitchen. (App. Vol. 2 at 20.) In addition, Ciarra had a broken front tooth and wounds in her mouth suggesting suffocation. She also had cuts and bruises on her arms and legs.
[¶15] Moreover, Thompson did not immediately report Ciarra's injuries. Ciarra had been dead for several hours before police arrived on the scene, and Thompson had tried to clean up the crime scene before the police arrived. Thompson lied to Ciarra's mother repeatedly about where Ciarra was and what she was doing. Thompson only called 911 after Ciarra's mother insisted that if he did not call 911, she was going to call. Thompson's duplicity following his murder of Ciarra makes his crime even more appalling. See Oberhansley v. State, 208 N.E.3d 1261, 1271 (Ind. 2023) (explaining that defendant's deceptive behavior and attempts to shift blame aggravated the nature of his offense). Thompson's offense was an act of pure savagery, and there is nothing about the nature of it that merits a downward revision of his sentence. See, e.g., Littlefield v. State, 215 N.E.3d 1081, 1089-90 (Ind.Ct.App. 2023) (holding the "horrendous circumstances of the crimes" did not warrant a downward revision of the defendant's sentence), trans. denied.
[¶16] Turning to Thompson's character, one factor we consider in assessing the appropriateness of a defendant's sentence is the defendant's criminal history. Smoots v. State, 172 N.E.3d 1279, 1290 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021). Even a minor criminal history reflects poorly on a defendant's character. Prince v. State, 148 N.E.3d 1171, 1174 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020). Here, Thompson was convicted in 2015 of Class B misdemeanor battery against his ex-wife. That conviction reflects poorly on Thompson's character because it demonstrates his history of domestic violence and indicates that Ciarra's murder was an escalation of Thompson's criminal behavior. See Heyen v. State, 936 N.E.2d 294, 305 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010) (explaining defendant's commission of "the same crimes again and again" reflected poorly on his character). Thompson was also convicted in 2008 of Class C misdemeanor illegal consumption of an alcoholic beverage, and during the proceedings in that case, Thompson failed to appear for hearings five times. While Thompson eventually pled guilty in the instant case, he did so after his trial had already started, and in his statement at sentencing, Thompson still sought to blame Ciarra for contributing to her own death. He also sought to deflect blame by stating he could not remember the incident due to excessive Adderall consumption. Thus, despite his guilty plea, Thompson has not accepted full responsibility for his crime. Thompson served in the Army for two years and received a general discharge, and while military service is commendable, Thompson's service does not constitute such compelling evidence of good character that it renders his maximum sentence inappropriate. See Hale v. State, 128 N.E.3d 456, 464 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019) ("military service is not necessarily a mitigating circumstance"), trans. denied. Moreover, domestic violence and murder fall well below the level of conduct we expect from members of the military. See id. (explaining that the defendant's crimes "reflect conduct especially incompatible with that expected of a member of our military"). Thompson's character does not merit a lesser sentence. See, e.g., Woodcock v. State, 163 N.E.3d 863, 879 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021) (holding defendant's character did not merit a lesser sentence given his criminal history and longstanding issues with substance abuse), trans. denied.
Conclusion
[¶17] Thompson's sentence is not inappropriate given the horrific nature of his crime, his criminal history, and his failure to accept full responsibility for his criminal behavior. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
[¶18] Affirmed.
Tavitas, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.