Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
FILED
Feb 11 2013, 8:29 am
court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata, CLERK
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
JEREMY M. NOEL GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Bloomington, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
JOSEPH Y. HO
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
THOMAS OAKLEY, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 53A01-1204-CR-148
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MONROE CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Marc R. Kellams, Judge
Cause No. 53C02-1111-FC-1099
February 11, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
RILEY, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant-Defendant, Thomas Oakley (Oakley), appeals his sentence following a
guilty plea to carrying a handgun without a license, a Class C felony, Ind. Code §§ 35-47-
2-1, -2-3(C)(2).
We affirm.
ISSUE
Oakley raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether his sentence was
appropriate in light of his character and the nature of the offense.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 9, 2011, while under the influence of heroin and methamphetamine,
Oakley argued with his pregnant girlfriend, Tiffany Purtlebaugh (Purtlebaugh), outside a
residence on West Eight Street in Bloomington, Indiana. Oakley, who was carrying his
handgun, fired several shots in the air, down the street, and then pointed the gun at the
heads of Purtlebaugh’s mother and brother, stating “I have a whole other clip.”
(Appellant’s App. p. 9). Oakley and Purtlebaugh then got into a vehicle and drove away.
Police officers were able to locate Oakley via information from a local cellular
phone tower. When they pulled in behind Oakley’s car, he sped away, ignoring the
officers’ commands to stop. He eventually stopped the car and was placed under arrest.
On November 14, 2011, the State filed an Information charging Oakley with
Count I, intimidation, a Class C felony, I.C. §§ 35-45-2-1(a)(2), -1(b)(2); Count II,
carrying a handgun without a license, a Class C felony, I.C. §§35-47-2-1, -23(c)(2);
2
Count III and IV, pointing a firearm, a Class D felonies, I.C. § 35-47-4-3(b); Count V,
criminal recklessness, a Class D felony, I.C. §§ 35-42-2-2(b)(1), -2(c)(2)(A); and Count
VI, resisting law enforcement, a Class D felony, I.C. § 35-44-3-3(a)(3), -3(b)(1)(A). That
same day, the State filed a notice of intent to seek an enhanced penalty based upon a prior
conviction. On January 13, 2012, Oakley entered into a plea agreement with the State,
agreeing to plead guilty to Count II, carrying a handgun without a license in exchange for
the dismissal of the other charges. The plea agreement specified that the sentence would
carry a cap of five years. On February 8, 2012, the trial court sentenced Oakley to five
years executed.
Oakley now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Oakley contends that his five–year sentence is inappropriate considering his
character and the nature of the offense. Here, Oakley was sentenced to a Class C felony,
which carries a fixed term of between two and eight years, with the advisory sentence
being four years. See I.C. § 35-50-2-6. As such, Oakley’s sentence falls within the
statutory guidelines.
Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), this 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. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). In performing our review, we assess
“the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others,
and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895
3
N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). A defendant “must persuade the appellate court that his
or her sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review.” Anglemyer v. State,
868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).
With respect to Oakley’s character, we note that at the time of the instant offense,
Oakley was twenty-nine years old and had already accumulated an extensive criminal
history. Within the last twelve years, he has received eleven convictions, including five
felonies ranging from theft and battery to dealing in controlled substances. Each time
Oakley was placed on probation, he violated it. In fact, he had recently been released
from prison in July 20111 and was placed on probation for dealing controlled substances,
a Class B felony, when he began using again in September of 2011 and committed the
current offense.
Oakley now asserts that he felt overwhelmed after his girlfriend became pregnant
and started abusing illegal substances again. Unable to handle the additional
responsibility of a child, he purchased the handgun from “a roadside produce vendor” and
intended to commit suicide. (Appellant’s App. p. 9). However, his words ring hollow as
he clearly was not turning the handgun on himself; rather, he brandished the weapon at
his pregnant girlfriend while “really drugged up,” firing into the air, as well as pointing
the gun at the heads of his girlfriend’s mother and brother. (Sent. Transcript p. 9).
Although we acknowledge that at some point, Oakley attempted to seek help from
his probation officer, he failed to follow his probation officer’s suggestion to enroll in
1
However, Oakley asserted during the sentencing hearing that his actual release date had been in April
2011.
4
treatment with an outpatient provider until securing a place at an intensive inpatient
rehabilitation program.
Turning to the nature of the crime, we note that Oakley put his pregnant girlfriend
in harm’s way, endangered her family and the public by firing in the air, and engaged the
police in a dangerous vehicle pursuit.
In sum, Oakley’s addiction, destructive behavior, and disregard for the criminal
justice system as is evidenced by his probation violations, warrant the sentence imposed
by the trial court. Thus, we cannot conclude that the five-year executed sentence is
inappropriate in light of his character and nature of the offense.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Oakley’s sentence is appropriate in light
of his character and nature of the offense.
Affirmed.
BAKER, J. and BARNES, J. concur
5