Opinion
24A-CR-1667
12-26-2024
Jamone M. Williams, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Thomas C. Allen Fort Wayne, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Ellen H. Meilaender Supervising 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Allen Superior Court The Honorable David M. Zent, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D05-2002-F4-18
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Thomas C. Allen
Fort Wayne, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Indiana Attorney General
Ellen H. Meilaender
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
Judges Bradford and Foley concur.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Bailey, Judge.
Case Summary
[¶1] Jamone Williams appeals his sentence following his convictions for two counts of child molesting, one as a Level 1 felony and one as a Level 4 felony.Williams raises one issue for our review, namely, whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. We affirm.
I.C. § 35-42-4-3(b).
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] Williams was married to Michele Williams, who is K.D.'s paternal grandmother. K.D. would often spend weekends with Williams and Michele while his mother worked. When K.D. was around four years old, Williams began to touch him inappropriately.
[¶3] While K.D. was sleeping, Williams would get behind K.D., pull K.D.'s pants and underwear down, and put "his penis in [K.D.'s] butt." Trial Tr. Vol. 1 at 189. Williams did this "probably every two (2) weeks" from the time K.D. was four years old until he was nine years old. Id. at 191. In addition, Williams played "the blindfold game" with K.D. on at least two occasions. Id. at 192. During that "game," Williams placed a blindfold over K.D.'s eyes and then "put his penis in [K.D.'s] mouth." Id. at 192. In December 2019, K.D. disclosed the offenses to his maternal grandmother, who immediately took K.D. to the hospital.
[¶4] The State charged Williams with one count of child molesting, as a Level 1 felony, and one count of child molesting, as a Level 4 felony. The trial court held a jury trial from January 4 through 6, 2022. During the trial, K.D. testified about the offenses, and other individuals testified in support of K.D.
[¶5] At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Williams guilty as charged. Following the jury trial but prior to sentencing, Williams was hospitalized. The court held Williams' sentencing hearing at the hospital but outside of Williams' room. The court found that Williams had waived his right to be present and sentenced him to an aggregate term of forty-nine years. Williams appealed, and our Supreme Court found that Williams had not waived his right to be physically present at sentencing. Williams v. State, 219 N.E.3d 729, 731 (Ind. 2023). Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated Williams' sentence and remanded to the trial court for resentencing. Id.
[¶6] The trial court held a new sentencing hearing on June 17, 2024. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court identified as mitigating the fact that the offenses were unlikely to reoccur. The court identified as aggravating factors Williams' criminal history, that prior attempts at rehabilitation have failed, that he had violated a position of trust, and that he was on probation at the time he committed the instant offenses. The court then sentenced Williams to forty years on the Level 1 felony conviction and nine years on the Level 4 felony conviction, to run consecutively, for an aggregate term of forty-nine years in the Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[¶7] Williams contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that "[t]he Court may 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." This Court has recently held that "[t]he advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed." Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 844 (Ind.Ct.App. 2017). And the Indiana Supreme Court has recently explained that:
The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to leaven the outliers . . . but not achieve a perceived "correct" result in each case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Defendant has the burden to persuade us that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), as amended (July 10, 2007), decision clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original).
[¶8] Indiana's flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court's judgment "should receive considerable deference." Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate at the end of the day turns on "our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other facts that come to light in a given case." Id. at 1224. The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008). Deference to the trial court "prevail[s] unless overcome by 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)." Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).
[¶9] The sentencing range for a Level 1 felony is twenty years to fifty years, with an advisory sentence of thirty years. I.C. § 35-50-2-4(c). And the sentencing range for a Level 4 felony is two years to twelve years, with an advisory sentence of six years. I.C. § 35-50-2-5.5. Here, the court sentenced Williams to an aggregate sentence of forty-nine years.
[¶10] On appeal, Williams does not make any argument that the nature of the offenses warrants a revision to his sentence. Rather, Williams concedes that his "position of trust as being the step[-]grandfather to the victim makes his criminal offense[s] more egregious than a typical offense." Appellant's Br. at 20. However, he contends that his sentence is inappropriate because his "general character demonstrated some positive aspects." Id. In particular, he contends that he showed an "ability to comply with the rules of society and rules of probation" as an adult because he "had been released on home detention for a period of five (5) years and had no violations." Id. at 21. He also maintains that his character warrants a revised sentence because he "remain[ed] employed while on probation," he received his GED and then an associate's degree, and he has "substantial medical heath issues which long[-] term incarceration would exacerbate." Id. at 21-22.
[¶11] However, Williams has not met his burden on appeal to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate. First, we agree with Williams that there is nothing about the nature of the offense that warrants a revised sentence. Indeed, Williams molested his young step-grandson by placing his penis in K.D.'s anus and by placing his penis in K.D.'s mouth while K.D. was blindfolded. And this occurred while Williams and Michele were caring for K.D.
[¶12] As for his character, Williams has a criminal history that dates back to 1995 and includes four adjudications as a juvenile delinquent, three of which would be felonies if committed by an adult, and one prior felony conviction for voluntary manslaughter. In addition, Williams was on probation for the voluntary manslaughter conviction at the time he committed the instant offenses. Williams has not presented compelling evidence portraying substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character. See Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122. We cannot say that Williams' sentence is inappropriate in light of his character.
Conclusion
[¶13] Williams' sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses or his character. We therefore affirm his sentence.
[¶14] Affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Foley, J., concur.