Opinion
24A-CR-1128
12-27-2024
Eltonio Williams, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Frederick Vaiana Voyles Vaiana Lukemeyer Baldwin & Webb Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Michelle Hawk Kazmierczak 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Marion Superior Court The Honorable James B. Osborn, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49D21-2203-F1-6759
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Frederick Vaiana Voyles Vaiana Lukemeyer Baldwin & Webb Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General
Michelle Hawk Kazmierczak Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BRADFORD, JUDGE
Case Summary
[¶1] After his conviction for Level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a license, Eltonio Williams was sentenced by a trial court to four years of incarceration. The trial court considered Williams's criminal history to be an aggravating circumstance and the hardship that a term of incarceration would have on Williams's children to be a mitigating circumstance with little weight. Williams contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him. Because we disagree, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] On June 26, 2021, Williams and another man were involved in a confrontation, which eventually led to an exchange of gunfire, at a private, adult club in Indianapolis. A security guard at the club was shot twice in the leg as a result, and Williams and the other man fled the scene.
[¶3] The State charged Williams with Level 1 felony attempted murder, Level 5 felony battery causing serious bodily injury by means of a deadly weapon, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. The State also sought a Level 5 felony enhancement on the handgun charge by virtue of a prior felony conviction from September of 2012.
[¶4] A jury trial commenced on April 1, 2024. The jury found Williams not guilty of Counts 1 and 2. The jury found Williams guilty of carrying a handgun without a license, after which he pled guilty to the felony enhancement.
[¶5] The presentence investigation report ("PSI") for Williams included his criminal history, which revealed prior felony convictions for possessing criminal tools or controlled substance device instrument for criminal intent; attempt to commit carrying concealed weapon; failure to comply with order or signal of police officer-fleeing and eluding; and a misdemeanor conviction for disorderly conduct. The PSI also included information on an Ohio warrant, dismissed cases, and pending cases.
[¶6] At the sentencing hearing conducted on April 18, 2024, the State supplemented Williams's criminal history with additional information regarding a number of Ohio arrests which had not resulted in convictions. Williams objected to these additions and the trial court noted Williams's objection. Williams testified that he had three children who lived with their mother in Ohio, which he cared for when their mother would bring them to Indiana. When asked about his involvement in the children's lives, he stated "I'm slightly involved. They know who I am. I still talk to them while I'm [in jail]." Tr. Vol. IV p. 157-58.
[¶7] The trial court sentenced Williams to four years of incarceration, with 544 days of credit time. The trial court considered Williams's criminal history to be an aggravating circumstance, and the "fact that an imposition of a jail sentence would impose hardship" on his children as a mitigating circumstance with less weight. Tr. Vol. IV p. 168.
Discussion and Decision
[¶8] Williams contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him. "[S]entencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and are reviewed on appeal only for abuse of discretion." Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), modified on other grounds on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). "An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom." Id. (quotation omitted).
We review for an abuse of discretion the court's finding of aggravators and mitigators to justify a sentence, but we cannot review the relative weight assigned to those factors. When reviewing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances identified by the trial court in its sentencing statement, we will remand only if the record does not support the reasons, or the sentencing statement omits reasons that are clearly supported by the record, and advanced for consideration, or the reasons given are improper as a matter of law.Baumholser v. State, 62 N.E.3d 411, 416 (Ind.Ct.App. 2016) (internal citations and quotation omitted), trans. denied.
[¶9] Williams contends that the trial court "ignored the bulk of the mitigating evidence" that he presented. Appellant's Br. p. 8. Williams's argument primarily relies on a comment the trial court made at the sentencing hearing that it was "perverse" that Williams obtained a benefit for the hardship his children would be facing by the imposition of his being incarcerated. Review of the record, however, reveals that the trial court did not ignore this mitigating circumstance:
To the extent that Williams relies on Gambill v. State, 436 N.E.2d 301 (Ind. 1982) and Hammons v. State, 493 N.E.2d 1250 (Ind. 1986) to show that the trial court's sentencing statement "unfairly impacted" him, he is misguided. In Gambill, the trial court's comments at sentencing indicated that it intended to compensate for, what the trial court believed to be, an erroneous jury verdict. 436 N.E.2d at 305. Likewise, in Hammons, the trial judge, "on three different occasions .. stated for the record that he disagreed with the jury verdict for voluntary manslaughter because there was sufficient evidence for a murder verdict." 493 N.E.2d at 1253. Unlike in those cases, the trial court here merely stated it was "perverse" that Williams was receiving a benefit for the hardship that his children would suffer, not that it was denying him that benefit. Tr. Vol. IV p. 168.
As to mitigating circumstances, I'm not going to put a lot of weight into fact that an imposition of a jail sentence would impose hardship on your dependents. But I do consider it a mitigator, because they didn't ask to be in the position they're in. They're the ones that are affected by your actions. It's perverse that you obtained some benefit to that. But nevertheless, that's what the statutes say. I'm going to show that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances.
Tr. Vol. IV p. 168.
[¶10] Although the trial court apparently did not apply significant weight to the hardship of the children, it did consider the hardship to be a mitigating circumstance, albeit one outweighed by the aggravating circumstances. Williams's argument amounts to a request that we review the weight that the trial court assigned to this mitigating circumstance, which we will not do. Baumholser, 62 N.E.3d at 416 (citing Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 490).
To the extent that Williams argues that the trial court ignored other mitigating evidence that he presented, we note that he failed to identify any significant mitigators that the trial court overlooked. Appellant's Br. p. 8. "An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating factor requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record." Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 493 (citation omitted).
[¶11] Williams also contends that the trial court "accepted the State's unproven additions to the PSI ... as fact." Appellant's Br. p. 8. At the sentencing hearing, in addition to the PSI, the State informed the trial court about a series of arrests in Ohio attributed to Williams that had not been included in the PSI. Williams objected and disputed the arrest records, asserting that he had not been in Ohio since 2015.
[¶12] The trial court considered the PSI, Williams's testimony, argument of counsel, and Williams's objection and dispute to the State's additional arrest information when it found Williams's criminal history to be an aggravating circumstance, stating that "the criminal history is the primary evidence circumstance and I will put a great deal of weight on that." Tr. Vol. IV p. 167. Furthermore, even without the State's supplemental information, the record shows that Williams did have a significant criminal history with three prior felony convictions, one misdemeanor conviction, pending felonies, and one pending misdemeanor. We cannot say, based on the record, that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that Williams's criminal history was an aggravating circumstance.
[¶13] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Bailey, J., and Foley, J., concur.