Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01

- 1711

- CR

- 2714 | June 25, 2018 Page 1 of 5



### 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 Joseph D. Gaunt The Gaunt Law Office Martinsville, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Evan Matthew Comer Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana



### I N T H E 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Craig Thacker , Appellant

- Defendant , v. 

### State of Indiana , Appellee

- Plaintiff

. June 25, 2018 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 55A01

- 1711

- CR

- 2714 Appe al from the Morgan Superior Court The Honorable Peter Foley, Judge Trial Co urt Cause No. 55D01

- 1606

- F6

- 792

Bradford , Judge .Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01

- 1711

- CR

- 2714 | June 25, 2018 Page 2 of 5 

# Case Summary
[1] In May of 2016, Craig Thacker removed his electronic monitoring device and disappeared for four days. On June 1, 2016, the State charged Thack er with Level 6 felony escape and Class A misdemeanor theft and alleged him to be a habitual offender . On August 7, 2017, Thacker pled guilty to Level 6 felony escape in exchange for the dismissal of the theft charge and habitual offender allegation

. On September 11, 2017, the trial court sentenced Thacker to a two
and

- one - half

- year executed sentence. Thacker contends that his sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character. Concluding that Thacker’s sentence wa s not i nappropriate, we affirm.



# Facts and Procedural History
[2] On May 11, 2016, Thacker was placed on home detention for fifty days following a drug conviction

. During that period, Thacker was required to wear an electronic monitoring device

. Approximately two weeks after being placed on home detention, Thacker was ordered by Morgan County Community Corrections (“ community c orrections”) to report for a drug screening. After receiving that phone call, Thacker cut off the electronic monitoring device and mailed it to community c orrections. Community c orrections, howeve r, never received the device.

[3] Thacker subsequently disappeared for four days. After he was found, he was taken into custody and charged with Level 6 felony escape and Class ACourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01

- 1711

- CR

- 2714 | June 25, 2018 Page 3 of 5

misdemeanor thef

t and alleged to be habitual o ffender

. Thacker pled guilty to the escape charge on August 7, 2017, in exchange for the dismissal of the theft charge and habi tual offender allegation . During sentencing, t he trial court found no mitig ating circumstances , but did find the following aggravating circumstances: (1) Thacker recently violated the terms of his proba tion, (2) Thacker vi olated the terms of home detention , and (3) Thacker possessed a significant criminal history. Thacker’s criminal record includes el even misdemeanors, twelve felonies, and three juvenile delinquency adjudications. The trial court sentenced Thacker to two
- and

- one - half years in prison.



# Discussion and Decision
[4] The sole issue for our review is whether Thacker’s two
- and

- one - half

- year sentence is in appropriate in light of the nature of his offense and character. Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), “[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.” When reviewing such claims, we “concentrate less on comparing the facts of the [case at issue] to others, whether real or hypothetical, and more on focusi ng on the nature, extent, and depravity of the offense for which the defendant is being sentence, and what it reveals about the defendant’s character.” Paul v. State , 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (internal quotes and citations omitted). Thack er , as the defendant,Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01

- 1711

- CR

- 2714 | June 25, 2018 Page 4 of 5

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] With respect to the nature of the offense, Thacke r cut off his electronic monitoring device and disap peared for four days

. The record shows that Thacker claimed that he had a “panic attack” that caused him to intentionally escape from home detention. Tr. Vol. I p. 24. The evidence also shows that Thacker knew he was required to go to a dr ug screen arou nd the time that he escaped from home detention. While this escape is not the most egregious of crimes, it does show an intentional abuse of his home detention and an inability to respect the terms of his probation

.
[6] As for his character, at age fifty, T hacker has amassed a significant criminal record

. Thacker’s criminal record includes eleven misdemeanors, twelve felonies, and three juvenile delinquency adjudications. The record shows that Thacker has received the benefit of probation, treatment, and short jail sentences in those previous cases, but continues to reoffend. In total, Thacker has been on probation nine times , violating the terms of his probation seven times

. As for treatment, the record shows that Thacker has been enrolled in eight different programs for his drug use and has failed to complete approximately half of those programs. Despite Thacker’s frequent contacts with the criminal justice system, he has not chosen to reform himself. Based on the above

- mentioned evidence of Thacker’s character and the nature of his offense, Thacker has failed to establish that his two
- and

- one - half

- year sentence
wa s inappropriate

.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01

- 1711

- CR

- 2714 | June 25, 2018 Page 5 of 5

[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Baker, J., and Kirsch, J ., concur.