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. Dec 10 2014, 9:48 am
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
STEPHEN P. MURPHY GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Law Offices of Stephen Murphy, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Evansville, Indiana
RYAN D. JOHANNINGSMEIER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JETON HALL, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 82A05-1402-CR-90
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE VANDERBURGH CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable David D. Kiely, Judge
Cause No. 82C01-1203-FA-420
December 10, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAILEY, Judge
Case Summary
Jeton A. Hall (“Hall”) challenges his aggregate forty-year sentence for Burglary as a
Class A felony,1 Criminal Confinement, as a Class B felony,2 and Theft, a Class D felony.3
He presents the sole issue of whether the sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On February 19, 2012, Ira Beumer (“Beumer”) returned home and was confronted by
five armed and masked men. Hall was one of those men. Beumer was taken inside his
residence and confined while his home was being burglarized. After some time, the burglars
left in their vehicle and Beumer went to his vehicle and gave chase. Ultimately, Beumer
crashed his vehicle into the vehicle carrying Hall and his confederates. One of the
passengers was killed and Hall was critically injured.
The State charged Hall with Burglary, Criminal Confinement, and Theft. He pled
guilty to each of the charges and was sentenced to forty years imprisonment. This appeal
ensued.
Discussion and Decision
Upon conviction of a Class A felony, Hall was subject to a sentence of between
twenty years and fifty years, with thirty years as the advisory term. I.C. § 35-50-2-4. Upon
conviction of a Class B felony, Hall was subject to a sentence of between six years and
twenty years, with ten years as the advisory term. I.C. § 35-50-2-5. Upon conviction of a
1
Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1. This offense is now a Level 1 felony. We refer to the version of the statute in
effect at the time of Hall’s crimes.
2
I.C. § 35-42-3-3. The offense is now a Level 3 felony.
3
I.C. § 35-43-4-2. The offense is now a Level 6 felony or a Class A misdemeanor.
2
Class D felony, Hall was subject to a sentence of between six months and three years, with
one and one-half years as the advisory term. I.C. § 35-50-2-7.4 Hall received concurrent
sentences of forty years, fifteen years, and two years, respectively. As such, Hall received an
aggregate sentence ten years above the advisory sentence for a Class A felony. When
imposing this sentence, the trial court found Hall’s criminal history and his violation of
probation to be aggravators. The trial court also recognized that there was evidence of
mitigating circumstances; specifically, that Hall had pled guilty, that he had been a positive
influence on his children’s lives, and that he had suffered traumatic brain injury as a result of
the collision after the burglary.
The authority granted to this Court by Article 7, § 6 of the Indiana Constitution
permitting appellate review and revision of criminal sentences is implemented through
Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides: “The 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.” In performing our review, we assess “the 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.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). The principal role of
such review is to attempt to leaven the outliers. Id. at 1225. A defendant ‘“must persuade
the appellate court that his or her sentence has met th[e] inappropriateness standard of
4
This statutory provision was modified, effective July 1, 2014, to include the penalty for level 6 felonies.
3
review.”’ Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007) (quoting Childress v. State,
848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)).
The nature of Hall’s offenses is that he armed himself and participated in a group
home invasion. The victim was confined for a period of time, but later gave chase to the
fleeing burglars. Ultimately, this resulted in the death of one of Hall’s associates. Also as a
result of these events, Hall was rendered comatose for several days and sustained traumatic
brain injury.
By the age of twenty-two, Hall had a prior felony conviction for Burglary and
misdemeanor convictions for Criminal Mischief, Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon, and
Disorderly Conduct. He was on probation in Kentucky at the time of the instant offenses.
Having reviewed the matter, we conclude that the trial court did not impose an
inappropriate sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B), and the sentence does not warrant
appellate revision.5 Accordingly, we decline to disturb the sentence imposed by the trial
court.
Affirmed.
ROBB, J., concurs.
BROWN, J., concurs in result with opinion.
5
To the extent that Hall argues he should receive a more lenient sentence because he does not expect to
receive adequate care for a traumatic brain injury in prison, this is not argument bearing upon the nature of
the offense or the character of the offender. See Kimbrough v. State, 979 N.E.2d 625, 630 (Ind. 2012)
(recognizing that a defendant who argues sentencing error as opposed to arguing the nature of the offense
or his character does not raise a claim under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B)).
4
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JETON HALL, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 82A05-1402-CR-90
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
BROWN, Judge, concurring in result
I concur in the result reached by the majority but do so due to the failure of appellant’s
counsel to make a cogent argument under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which the majority
refers to in footnote 5. The entire argument in his brief is one paragraph containing eight
lines which addresses neither the nature of the offense nor the character of the offender, both
of which are required to make a valid argument under Rule 7(B). See Williams v. State, 891
N.E.2d 621, 633 (Ind. Ct. App 2008) (observing that “revision of a sentence under Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B) requires the appellant to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate in
light of both the nature of his offenses and his character”). Instead the entire argument refers
to appellant’s brain trauma and states:
In this case, the defendant was borderline mentally handicapped immediately
prior to the crime and accident. As a result of the accident immediately
following the crime, the defendant suffered serious trauma including brain
trauma which required him to under go [sic] rehabilitation for motor skills, for
his communication skills, and for all other physical matters. On top of the
trauma inflicted by the accident, the defendant’s brain trauma which resulted
5
from the accident was serious as it affects his memory and other cognitive
functioning and memory. This is going to require the defendant to undergo
therapy on an on-going basis for memory loss and the chance of him getting
the proper therapy in prison is remote.
Appellant’s Brief at 6 (citations to record omitted). This is wholly inadequate to preserve any
error under Ind. App. Rule 7(B) for appellate review.
For this reason, I concur in the result reached by the majority.
6