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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
ANTHONY C. LAWRENCE GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
ANDREW R. FALK
Deputy Attorney General
FILED
Indianapolis, Indiana
Aug 15 2012, 9:25 am
IN THE CLERK
of the supreme court,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA court of appeals and
tax court
LLOYD W. MEZICK, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 48A02-1112-CR-1170
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MADISON CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable David A. Happe, Judge
Cause No. 48D04-0907-FD-238, 48D04-1003-FD-72, and 48D04-1003-FC-73
August 15, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
KIRSCH, Judge
Lloyd M. Mezick appeals his sentences for nonsupport of a dependent child,1 a
Class C felony; possession of a controlled substance,2 a Class D felony; intimidation,3 a
Class D felony; resisting law enforcement,4 a Class A misdemeanor; battery on a police
officer,5 a Class A misdemeanor; and two counts of public intoxication,6 Class B
misdemeanors, claiming that his aggregate sentence of twelve years with six years
executed at the Indiana Department of Correction, four years executed at the Madison
County Work Release Center, and two years suspended to probation was inappropriate in
light of the nature of his offenses and his character.
We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mezick entered into a plea agreement by which he pleaded guilty to each of the
above counts and was referred to the Madison County Mental Health Court Program. In
the event that he successfully completed the terms and conditions of the program, all of
the charges would be dismissed. Mezick did not successfully complete the program. He
failed to appear for drug screens, missed treatment appointments, and was discharged
from treatment.
1
See Ind. Code § 35-46-1-5.
2
See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-7.
3
See Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1.
4
See Ind. Code § 35-44-3-3 (repealed by P.L. 125-2012, §53 effective July 1, 2012 and recodified
at Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1 by P.L. 126-2012, §54 effective July 1, 2012).
5
See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.
6
See Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3.
2
In sentencing Mezick, the trial court noted that his criminal history consisting of
seven felony convictions, thirteen public intoxication convictions, five drunk driving
convictions, and ten probation violations, and his failure to complete the drug program
were aggravating factors; that Mezick’s mental health was a mitigating circumstance; and
that the aggravators outweighed the mitigators.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) authorizes appellate courts to “revise a sentence
authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court
finds the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of
the offender.” The burden is on the appellant to persuade this court that the sentence is
inappropriate. Reid v. State, 876 N.E.2d 1114, 1116 (Ind. 2007).
Here, assuming without deciding that the nature of Mezick’s offenses is
unremarkable, Mezick has failed to satisfy his burden regarding his character. Mezick’s
criminal history is extensive. As shown by the above criminal history, repeated
opportunities for reformation were unavailing including the opportunity to participate in
the Drug Treatment Court program in this case. While Mezick’s mental illness was a
significant factor, Mezick’s failure to take advantage of repeated treatment opportunities
mitigates against such factor.
Affirmed.
NAJAM, J., and MAY, J., concur.
3