Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 58A01-1711-CR-2692 | August 21, 2018 Page 1 of 4

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

R. Patrick Magrath

Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP

Madison, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

George P. Sherman

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Joey Lee Offill,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

August 21, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

58A01-1711-CR-2692

Appeal from the Ohio Circuit

Court

The Honorable James D. 

Humphrey, Judge

The Honorable Kimberly A. 

Schmaltz, Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

58C01-1612-F5-7

Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 58A01-1711-CR-2692 | August 21, 2018 Page 2 of 4

Case Summary

[1] On August 18, 2017, Joey Lee Offill pled guilty to Level 5 felony operating a 

vehicle after having received a lifetime suspension. In sentencing Offill, the 

trial court considered both his lengthy criminal history, consisting of thirty-nine 

prior convictions and fifteen prior probation violations, and his claimed mental 

deficiencies. The trial court imposed a five-year term of imprisonment. On 

appeal, Offill contends that his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] While on duty at approximately 3:30 a.m. on the morning of December 3, 

2016, Ohio County Sheriff’s Deputy Colin English observed a vehicle 

approaching that had a headlight out. Deputy English initiated a traffic stop 

and identified Offill as the driver. During the traffic stop, Offill indicated that

he “hadn’t had his license in a long time.” Tr. p. 7.

[3] The State charged Offill with Level 5 felony operating a vehicle after having 

received a lifetime suspension on December 5, 2016. On August 18, 2017, 

Offill pled guilty as charged. The trial court subsequently imposed a five-year 

executed sentence. 

Discussion and Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 58A01-1711-CR-2692 | August 21, 2018 Page 3 of 4

[4] Offill contends that his five-year sentence in inappropriate.1 Indiana Appellate 

Rule 7(B) provides that “The 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.” In analyzing such claims, we “‘concentrate less on comparing 

the facts of [the case at issue] to others, whether real or hypothetical, and more 

on focusing on the nature, extent, and depravity of the offense for which the 

defendant is being sentenced, and what it reveals about the defendant’s 

character.’” Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting 

Brown v. State, 760 N.E.2d 243, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied). The 

defendant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. 

Sanchez v. State, 891 N.E.2d 174, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[5] In this case, Offill chose to drive a vehicle despite knowing that his driving 

privileges had previously been suspended for life. In fact, when pulled over, 

Offill told Deputy English that “he hadn’t had a license in a long time.” Tr. p. 

7. Offill’s vehicle only had one headlight when Deputy English initiated the 

traffic stop at approximately 3:30 in the morning. Offill also smelled of 

alcoholic beverage, appeared nervous, had a blood alcohol concentration of 

.076, and had alcoholic beverages with him in the vehicle. Offill’s actions are 

 

1

 Although Offill’s brief references both the abuse of discretion and appropriateness standards of review, it 

only presents a cogent argument relating to the appropriateness standard. We will therefore limit our review 

accordingly.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 58A01-1711-CR-2692 | August 21, 2018 Page 4 of 4

troubling given his pattern of engaging in alcohol-related offenses, including 

operating vehicles while intoxicated. 

[6] As for Offill’s character, the record indicates that the trial court considered his 

mental deficiencies but found that they paled in significance to his criminal 

history. Offill had thirty-nine previous convictions and had violated the terms 

of probation on fifteen prior occasions. Many of these convictions appear 

related to alcohol abuse for which Offill has not sought treatment. In addition, 

while out on bond awaiting resolution in this case, Offill was charged with 

numerous additional crimes. These crimes included battery against his sister 

and another individual. He was also found to be a “very high” risk to reoffend. 

Appellant’s App. Vol. III, p. 16. Offill blames his criminal behavior on his 

mental deficiencies but has nonetheless failed to follow through on prior 

opportunities to receive mental health treatment. Given the nature of his 

offense and his significant criminal history, Offill has failed to convince us that 

his five-year sentence is inappropriate. 

[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Brown, J., and Altice, J., concur.