Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-548| March 12, 2015 Page 1 of 8

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this 

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as 

precedent or cited before any court except for the 

purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

William Byer, Jr.

Byer & Byer

Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Graham T. Youngs

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Antwaun D. Moody,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

March 12, 2015

Court of Appeals Cause No.

48A02-1408-CR-548

Appeal from the Madison Circuit 

Court

Cause No. 48C04-1211-FB-2090

The Honorable David A. Happe, 

Judge

Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-548| March 12, 2015 Page 2 of 8

Case Summary

[1] Antwaun Moody appeals his aggregate eighteen-year executed sentence for 

dealing in cocaine, a Class B felony; possession of a controlled substance, a 

Class D felony; possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor; and resisting 

law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor. We affirm.

Issue

[2] The issue is whether Moody’s eighteen-year sentence is inappropriate in light of 

his offenses and character.

Facts

[3] On November 2, 2012, Officers Chad Boynton and Chris Frazier of the 

Anderson Police Department responded to complaints of high foot traffic 

around the apartment of Adrienne Jones. The apartment complex manager 

explained that foot traffic was particularly heavy when Moody, who held no 

leasehold interest in the property, was at Jones’s apartment, and the manager

speculated that Moody was involved in selling illicit drugs. Before the dispatch, 

Officers Boynton and Frazier learned that Moody had an outstanding warrant 

for his arrest.

[4] Officers Boynton and Frazier were in the parking lot across from Jones’s 

apartment and, upon Moody’s departure from the unit, Officer Frazier called 

Moody by name and instructed him to stop. Moody fled, and other officers 

were called to secure the perimeter. Moody was caught a few blocks away.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-548| March 12, 2015 Page 3 of 8

Detective Bill Richardson later relayed that before Moody was caught, he saw 

Moody briefly crouch down by a garage. After Moody fled the garage,

Detective Richardson entered and found $935 in cash, which the garage owners 

confirmed was not theirs.

[5] After Moody was apprehended, Officer Frazier contacted Jones, who met 

Officer Frazier at her apartment and signed a waiver permitting officers to 

search her apartment. Officer Boynton and Officer Matthew Jarrett searched 

the apartment and found two metal pots containing white liquid residue, glass 

cookware bearing white residue, digital scales, a “large amount” (121.1 grams 

total) of a yellow, rock-like substance that tested positive for cocaine, as well as

white powder in a plastic bag that did not test positive for cocaine. Tr. p. 58. 

Three alprazolam pills and 1.22 grams of marijuana were found on the 

kitchen’s countertop. Three firearms—two loaded—were found in the 

apartment. The search also yielded a black wallet containing Moody’s 

identification. A fingerprint was recovered from the glass cookware and later 

was identified as a match to Moody. Officer Boynton believed that the items 

found in the apartment were consistent with the manufacturing and selling of

crack cocaine.

[6] Moody was charged with four counts from the November 2, 2012, arrest, which 

constitute the basis of this appeal: dealing in cocaine as a Class A felony; 

possession of a controlled substance as a Class D felony; possession of 

marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor; and resisting law enforcement as a Class 

A misdemeanor. On November 12, 2012, Moody was released on bond. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-548| March 12, 2015 Page 4 of 8

[7] On April 10, 2014, while on patrol, Officer Boynton and Detective Kris 

Ockomon encountered an illegally parked vehicle. The driver identified himself 

as “Montrez Cloud” and provided a date of birth and Social Security number. 

The officers ran the information, and the search revealed it was falsified.

Moments later, several women approached in another vehicle and advised that 

the driver of the illegally parked car was Moody. When Officer Ockomon 

instructed Moody to exit the vehicle, Moody head-butted him, propelling him 

backwards. Moody fled on foot, and after being apprehended once by the 

officers, fled again while being handcuffed. A foot chase ensued, and when 

Officer Boynton reached Moody, Moody fell and began “kicking and flaying,” 

striking Officer Boynton in the knee. Id. at 25. In Moody’s possession was a 

substance that resembled, but did not test positive for, crack cocaine.

[8] From the April 10, 2014, incident, Moody was charged with escape as a Class B 

felony; dealing in a look-alike substance as a Class C felony; two counts of 

battery as Class D batteries; three counts of resisting law enforcement as Class 

D felonies; one count of resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor; 

and false informing as a Class A misdemeanor. 

[9] At a consolidated guilty plea hearing, Moody pled guilty to the charges from 

the April 10, 2014, incident and also pled guilty to pointing a firearm as a Class 

D felony, a charge from an arrest that occurred on August 1, 2012. In the cause 

at issue, Moody pled guilty to all four counts, although the dealing in cocaine 

count was reduced to a Class B felony.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-548| March 12, 2015 Page 5 of 8

[10] At a consolidated sentencing hearing, Moody was sentenced to eighteen years 

with fourteen years executed and served for the April 10, 2014, charges and 

August, 1, 2012, charge. Moody was sentenced to an aggregate eighteen-year 

executed sentence for the four counts from the November 2, 2012, incident. 

[11] Regarding the November 2, 2012, convictions, the trial court found as 

aggravating factors Moody’s extensive juvenile record, his violation of the 

pretrial release conditions, and his felony convictions in the companion cause. 

In terms of mitigating factors, the court noted Moody’s admission of guilt and 

his relatively young age as a twenty-one-year-old but explained that due to his 

extensive criminal record, his youth was afforded “very little mitigating 

weight.” Id. at 70. Moody now appeals.

Analysis

[12] Moody argues that the trial court’s imposition of an aggregate eighteen-year 

executed sentence is inappropriate. We assess whether Moody’s sentence is 

inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) in light of his character and 

the nature of the offense. See Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 

2007). Although Rule 7(B) does not require us to be “extremely” deferential to 

a trial court’s sentencing decision, we still must give due consideration to that 

decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We 

also understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its 

sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a defendant bears the burden of 

persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate.” Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-548| March 12, 2015 Page 6 of 8

[13] The principal role of Rule 7(B) review “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). We “should focus on the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than 

the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the 

sentence on any individual count.” Id. Whether a sentence is inappropriate 

ultimately turns on 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. Id. at 1224. When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence 

under Rule 7(B), we may consider all aspects of the penal consequences 

imposed by the trial court in sentencing the defendant, including whether a 

portion of the sentence was suspended. Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 

1025 (Ind. 2010).

[14] Our review of the nature of the offense reveals that Moody’s operation was 

consistent with manufacturing and selling crack cocaine and that, especially

given Moody’s relative youth, the operation was exceptional. Officer Boynton 

testified that in his experience, “[i]t’s very, very rare” for a person of Moody’s 

age to deal in such large quantities and value of cocaine. Tr. p. 64. The 

presence of loaded firearms in the drug operation is a red flag. Finally, the 

State justifiably notes that while the quantity of cocaine was significantly 

greater than the minimum required for a Class A felony, which entails a 

maximum sentence of fifty years, Moody was convicted of a Class B felony, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-548| March 12, 2015 Page 7 of 8

which bears a maximum sentence of twenty years. See McSchooler v. State, 15 

N.E.3d 678, 685 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (affirming sentence as appropriate where

defendant’s “actions went far beyond what the State was required to prove to 

sustain his conviction”).

[15] Our review of Moody’s character reveals that, despite his relatively young age, 

Moody has a considerable criminal record. Moody’s juvenile record contains 

numerous adjudications, including resisting law enforcement, conversion, auto 

theft, and possession of marijuana and cocaine. In his short adult life, Moody 

has amassed several adult convictions, namely those from the immediately 

prior cause at the consolidated hearings. Moody argues that the fourteen-year 

sentence imposed from those companion convictions will provide sufficient 

rehabilitation. However, Moody’s extensive and persistent criminality and the 

fact that he committed numerous offenses while on bond and pretrial release

indicate a “disregard for the law” that justifies the trial court’s sentencing. Coy 

v. State, 999 N.E.2d 937, 949 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). 

[16] Moody argues that a ten-year sentence is more appropriate. Pursuant to Rule 

7(B), however, Moody must persuade us not that another sentence is more

appropriate but that the sentence imposed is inappropriate. See Webb v. State, 

941 N.E.2d 1082, 1090 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. In light of the 

capacity and potential dangerousness of Moody’s drug operation and his 

significant criminal record, he has failed to meet this burden.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-548| March 12, 2015 Page 8 of 8

Conclusion

[17] Moody’s aggregate eighteen-year executed sentence is not inappropriate. We 

affirm.

[18] Affirmed.

May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.