Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-20 | June 21, 2017 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 Cara Schaefer Wieneke Wieneke Law Office, LLC. Brooklyn, Indiana A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Elizabeth M. Littlejohn Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana


### IN THE 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Mason S. Crockett, A

ppellan t -Defendant,

v. 

### State of Indiana, A

ppelle e -Plaintiff June 21, 2017 Court of Appeals Case No. 84A01-1701-CR-20 Appeal from the Vigo Superior Court The Honorable David R. Bolk, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 84D03-1606-MR-1626
Vaidik, Chief Judge.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-20 | June 21, 2017 Page 2 of 5 

# Case Summary
[1] Mason S. Crockett was convicted of volu ntary manslaughter for stabbing his brother. The trial court sentenced hi m to twenty years. He now appeals arguing that his sentence is inapprop riate. Because Mason has failed to persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm. 

# Facts and Procedural History
[2] In 2016, Mason and his then-girlfriend, Ky lee, lived with their three children in Terre Haute. When Mason’s brother, Za chary Crockett, was released from jail, Mason and Kylee allowed him to move in with them. Shortly thereafter, Zachary and Kylee became romantically involved, which led Mason to move out. Despite moving out, Mason co ntinued to financially support the household. Mason gave Kylee their sh ared car because of their children, continued to pay rent and ut ilities, and provided grocer ies for the household.

[3] On May 16, 2016, the brothers got into a fight in response to Zachary’s interference with Mason’s visitation with his children. Mason was arrested and pled guilty to battery th e following week. He was placed on probation.

[4] Around 8:00 p.m. on June 16 Mason went to Kylee’s house to pick up some personal items. Zachary was there at th e time. Mason, intoxicated, confronted Zachary about a recent incident where he physically abused Kylee and one of the children. Another fight ensued betw een the brothers. Toward the end of the fight, Zachary began “taunting” Ma son about his romantic relationshipCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-20 | June 21, 2017 Page 3 of 5 with Kylee. Tr. Vol. III pp. 45-46. Mason stabbed Zachary in the chest and left.

[5] After the stabbing, Mason did not call 911 or otherwise seek help for his brother. Around 2:00 a.m., Mason calle d his mother, who lived in Tennessee, and told her that “he stabbed Zachary.” Tr. Vol. III p. 18. However, Mason would not tell her where he left Zachary or give her the house address. She eventually received the address from Kylee and called the Sheriff’s Office.

[6] A deputy from the Vigo Co unty Sheriff’s Office went to Kylee’s house around 10:00 a.m. to conduct a welfare check for Zachary. Zachary’s body was found around noon. Mason was arrested late r that day. The State charged Mason with murder and Level 2 felony volunt ary manslaughter. Mason and the State entered a plea agreement, whereby Maso n would plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter and the State would dismiss the murder charge. Pursuant to the agreement, the sentence could not exceed twenty-f ive years.

[7] At the sentencing hearing, the court id entified three aggravating circumstances: (1) Mason’s prior criminal history; (2) th e fact that he was on probation at the time of the offense; and (3) that Ma son was convicted of battering Zachary about thirty days before the sta bbing. The trial court identified two mitigating circumstances: (1) Mason pled guilty an d took responsibility for the crime and (2) he was remorseful for his actions. The court sentenced Mason to twenty years.
[8] Mason now appeals.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-20 | June 21, 2017 Page 4 of 5 

# Discussion and Decision
[9] Mason contends that his twenty-year sent ence is inappropriate in light of the “unremarkable nature of his offense” an d his “notable character.” Appellant’s Br. p. 4. The Indiana Cons titution authorizes independent appellate review and revision of a trial court’s sentencing decision. Brown v. State , 10 N.E.3d 1, 4 (Ind. 2014). This Court “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s deci sion, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the defendant.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) . “A defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met this inapprop riateness standard of review.” Childress v. State , 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

[10] The principal role of Rule 7(B) review “should be to atte mpt to leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for tria l courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing st atutes, but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State , 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). “Whether a sentence is inappropri ate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the seve rity of the crime, the da mage done to others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.” Thompson v. State , 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

[11] A person who commits a Level 2 felony mu st be imprisoned for a fixed term of between ten and thirty years, with an advisory sentence of seventeen-and-a halfCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-20 | June 21, 2017 Page 5 of 5 years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5. Th e trial court sentenced Mason to twenty years, which is slightly ab ove the advisory term.

[12] Mason concedes that the offense is “serious.” Appellant’s Br. p. 8. However, he contends that the o ffense is not “as egregious as other killings.” Id . To the contrary, an intoxicated Mason stabbed his brother and did not seek help for him afterwards. Mason testified that “it looked like [Zachary] saw death itself,” yet he still did not call 91 1. Tr. Vol. III p. 46. Moreover, Mason told his mother that he stabbed his brother bu t refused to give his whereabouts. Zachary’s body was not found until about sixteen hours later.

[13] Mason’s character does not fare much be tter. Since the age of fifteen, Mason has been committing crimes, which have become more violent over time. At the time of sentencing, Mason “had tw o juvenile adjudications, two prior felonies and three misdem eanor convictions.” Tr. Vol. III pp. 58-59. In addition, at the time of stabbing, Ma son was on probation for battering his brother a mere thirty days earlier.

[14] Given the nature of this crime and Mason’ s criminal history, we conclude that his twenty-year sentence is not inappropriate.

[15] Affirmed. Bailey, J., and Robb, J., concur.