Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before
any court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
Mar 28 2012, 9:18 am
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
PATRICK R. RAGAINS GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Richmond, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
ANN L. GOODWIN
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
STUART WARREN LACY, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 48A02-1107-CR-686
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MADISON CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Thomas Newman, Jr., Judge
Cause No. 48D03-1102-FB-249
March 28, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAILEY, Judge
Case Summary
Stuart Warren Lacy (“Lacy”) pled guilty to Robbery, a Class B felony.1 He was
sentenced to the maximum of twenty (20) years to be served at the Department of Correction.
He now appeals his sentence under the auspices of Appellate Rule 7(B). We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On January 22, 2011, Lacy robbed the Old National Bank in Anderson, Indiana by
passing a note to the teller indicating he had a gun and asking for money to be placed on the
counter. The teller looked in Lacy’s bag and saw what appeared to be a gun. The teller then
gave Lacy $8,000.00. Camera surveillance footage showed Lacy leaving the bank and
getting into a light colored vehicle.
On February 16, 2011, a bank robbery was reported in Middletown, Indiana. During
the investigation of the Middletown robbery, Lacy and his wife were identified as suspects
and taken into custody. Upon questioning by police, Lacy and his wife confessed to the
Anderson bank robbery and gave information about the location of items involved in the
robbery. Police executed a search warrant of Lacy’s home and located clothing and a bag
containing a starter pistol used in the robbery.
On February 18, 2011, the Madison County Prosecutor filed an Information charging
Lacy with Robbery as a Class B felony for the armed robbery of the Old National Bank in
Anderson. On June 6, 2011, Lacy pled guilty to Robbery, a Class B felony, without a plea
agreement. A presentence investigation report was filed on June 30, 2011. On July 6, 2011,
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1(1).
2
a sentencing hearing was conducted and Lacy was sentenced to twenty (20) years of
incarceration. This appeal followed.
Discussion and Decision
Lacy contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense
and his character under Appellate Rule 7(B). Independent appellate review and revision of a
sentence is authorized under Article VII, Sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution. Reid
v. State, 876 N.E.2d 1114, 1116 (Ind. 2007).
Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) [ ] provides that a 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. The burden is on the defendant to
persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate.
Id.
Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor the offender’s
sentence to the circumstances presented. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind.
2008). Therefore, “sentencing is principally a discretionary function in which the trial
court’s judgment should receive considerable deference.” Id. at 1222. One purpose of
appellate review is to attempt to “leaven the outliers.” Id. at 1125. “Whether we regard a
sentence as appropriate at the end of the day turns on our sense of culpability of the
defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that
come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224.
Lacy was convicted of committing a Class B felony. Sentencing for a Class B felony
ranges between six (6) years and twenty (20) years, with an advisory sentence being ten (10)
3
years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(a). Here, Lacy was sentenced to the statutory maximum term
of 20 years.
Regarding the nature of the offense, we may look to any factors appearing in the
record. Spitler v. State, 908 N.E.2d 694, 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. This was
an armed robbery that directly affected multiple victims including the bank teller and other
bank employees. Lacy admitted that he planned the bank robbery for several months, and
that the robbery was a part of a chain of escalating offenses related to his drug addictions.
With regard to Lacy’s character, he has an extensive history of prior convictions and
two probation violations related to his admitted drug abuse. Lacy’s prior criminal history is
significant based on the gravity, nature, number, and proximity of prior offenses as they
relate to the current offense. See Wooley v. State, 716 N.E. 2d 919, 929 n.4 (Ind. 1999). He
has three Class A misdemeanors: a 1996 battery conviction, a 2006 conviction for Operating
While Under the Influence, and a 2010 conviction for Possession of Paraphernalia. He has a
total of 17 prior Class D felonies: Possession of Cocaine, Possession of a Controlled
Substance, and 15 convictions for Check Fraud and Theft. He was given repeated leniency
by the courts including multiple probations, work release and in-home detention. Despite
this leniency, he violated his probation on multiple occasions, and was on probation for
offenses in Hamilton and Madison Counties when the instant offense occurred. Lacy also
admitted the Middletown robbery case was still pending in Henry County when he was
sentenced for the Anderson robbery. His past criminal history is directly relevant to the
current offense, as his crimes escalated from check fraud and theft to armed bank robbery in
4
order to support his drug addictions.
Lacy asks us to take notice that his plea of guilty was entered without benefit of a plea
agreement. While he cooperated with police, admitting to his crime and informing police
where evidence could be found, he did not do so until after he had been detained as a suspect
in another bank robbery. His confession seems more pragmatic in light of the apparently
strong evidence linking him to both robberies, including video surveillance tapes that were
used by witnesses to identify Lacy and the car used in both robberies. The identified car was
registered to Lacy and found in front of his apartment when police went to his residence to
execute arrest warrants for two other probation violations and to detain both Lacy and his
wife for questioning regarding the robberies. Where generally a plea should be considered
by a court as a mitigator in imposing a sentence, when the decision to plead guilty is based
upon pragmatic considerations, little or no weight need be given to this factor. Cf. Wells v.
State, 836 N.E.2d 475, 479 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (stating that “a guilty plea does not rise to
the level of significant mitigation . . . where the evidence against him is such that the decision
to plead guilty is merely a pragmatic one”), trans. denied.
Thus, we cannot conclude that Lacy’s twenty-year sentence was inappropriate in light
of the nature of his offense and his character.
Affirmed.
BAKER, J., and DARDEN, J., concur.
5