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.



### A TTORNEY FOR 

### A PPELLANT R. Patrick Magrath Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Madison , Indiana 

### A TTORNEY S FOR 

### A PPELLEE 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 Ca se No. 58A01

- 1711

- CR

- 2692 Appeal from the Ohio Circuit Court The Honorable James D. Humphrey , Judge The Honorable Kimberly A. Schmaltz, Magistrate Trial Co urt 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 vio lations, and his claimed mental deficiencies. The trial court imposed a five

- year term of imprisonment. On appeal, Offill c on t ends that his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.



# Facts and Procedural History

[2] 

### While on duty at approximately 3:30 a.m. on th e 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 s ubsequently imposed a five

- year executed sentence.


# Discussion and DecisionCourt 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 cons ideration 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 is sue] 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 (I nd. 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 onl y 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 ve hicle. 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 prio r 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 p rior 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.