MEMORANDUM DECISION
Jun 30 2015, 8:00 am
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
Elizabeth A. Bellin Gregory F. Zoeller
Elkhart, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Kelly A. Miklos
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Duane R. Tackett, June 30, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A03-1410-CR-368
v. Appeal from the Elkhart Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable George W.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Biddlecome, Judge
Cause No. 20D03-1403-FB-32
Najam, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] Duane R. Tackett appeals his convictions for two counts of dealing in
methamphetamine, both as Class B felonies. Tackett presents one issue for our
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1410-CR-368| June 30, 2015 Page 1 of 8
review, namely, whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of
his offenses and his character.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In January 2014, a cooperating source (“the CS”) approached the Goshen
Police Department’s Interdiction and Covert Enforcement Unit (“ICE”)
regarding Tackett’s girlfriend, Zabrina Brown. Brown had contacted the CS in
hopes that she could sell methamphetamine to the CS, information that the CS
relayed to ICE. In response, several undercover officers with ICE—Undercover
Officer 120 (“UC 120”), Undercover Officer 151 (“UC 151”), and Undercover
Officer 254 (“UC 254”)—arranged a controlled buy of methamphetamine
between the CS and Brown to occur on January 27 at a gas station in Goshen.
[4] On January 27, UC 254 drove the CS to the gas station. UC 120 and UC 151
monitored the transaction from a second vehicle, parked at a nearby vantage
point. When the CS and UC 254 arrived at the gas station, the CS identified
Brown as she exited the gas station. Brown crossed the parking lot and entered
the passenger side of a blue BMW 525i that belonged to Tackett. At the time,
Tackett was outside pumping gas into the BMW, and he waved the CS over to
his vehicle. The CS then approached Tackett’s vehicle and entered on the rear
passenger side. When the CS entered the BMW, Tackett reentered the vehicle.
At this point, the CS purchased two grams of methamphetamine for $200 from
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1410-CR-368| June 30, 2015 Page 2 of 8
Tackett and Brown. As a result of Tackett’s involvement in the controlled buy,
he also became a target in ICE’s investigation of Brown.
[5] Two days later, on January 29, the same ICE undercover officers arranged a
second controlled buy of methamphetamine between the CS and Brown to
occur at a different gas station in Goshen. For the second time, UC 254 drove
the CS to the gas station, while UC 120 and UC 151 conducted surveillance
from another vehicle parked nearby. When the CS and UC 254 arrived at the
gas station, they observed Tackett’s blue BMW already parked there. When
UC 254’s vehicle came to a stop, Brown exited the BMW’s driver side and
walked to UC 254’s passenger window. The CS then exchanged $100 for two
grams of methamphetamine, a gram each contained in two separate plastic
bags. Believing the transaction to be over, the CS and UC 254 exited the gas
station’s parking lot and turned onto an adjacent road. Shortly thereafter,
Tackett ran across the parking lot and along the edge of the road, yelling to UC
254 and the CS, “You owe me a hundred dollars.” Tr. at 136.
[6] UC 254 acknowledged Tackett and pulled back into the gas station’s parking
lot. Brown indicated that she had mistakenly provided two grams of
methamphetamine, an amount worth $200, for which the CS had paid only
$100. Thus, the CS returned one gram of the methamphetamine, and the two
again left the gas station.
[7] On March 28, the State charged Tackett with two counts of dealing in
methamphetamine, both as Class B felonies, which corresponded to the sales
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1410-CR-368| June 30, 2015 Page 3 of 8
that occurred on January 27 and 29. The trial court held Tackett’s jury trial on
July 21 and 22, at which Brown testified against Tackett. 1 At the conclusion of
his trial, the jury convicted Tackett on both counts. After a sentencing hearing,
held on September 18, the trial court sentenced Tackett to an aggregate term of,
sixteen years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction. In support of
the sentence the court imposed, it stated:
In arriving at that sentence, the Court notes that the Defendant
has four prior felony convictions, one previous misdemeanor
conviction. The Court disputes the argument that the Defendant
performed well in the community corrections facility setting.
The Court notes that he violated the terms of his placement in a
community corrections setting with respect to his 2005 sentences
for Possession of Marijuana[,] as a Class D felony[,] and
Maintaining a Common Nuisance[,] as a Class D Felony.
The Court further notes that the Indiana RISK Assessment
System deems the Defendant a high risk to re-offend.[2] If the
Defendant’s incarceration places a hardship on his mother, that
was the Defendant’s choice . . . . So . . . if his mother suffers a
hardship, he has no one to blame but himself.
He is clearly addicted to illicit drugs; however, the court notes
that he was given the opportunity to address that addiction while
at the Indiana Department of Correction facility. He either failed
or refused to do so in a responsible manner.
1
Brown entered an open plea to three counts of dealing in methamphetamine, all as Class B felonies. In her
plea agreement, Brown agreed to testify against Tackett. Ultimately, Brown received concurrent sentences of
twelve years in the Indiana Department of Correction, with six years suspended to probation.
2
As Tackett correctly points out on appeal, he was actually deemed a moderate risk to reoffend.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1410-CR-368| June 30, 2015 Page 4 of 8
I do not agree with counsel’s assessment that Miss Brown is the
more culpable of these two people. . . . He was clearly involved
in this sale from the testimony of the officers, not Miss Brown.
When the second transaction occurred, apparently the
undercover officer didn’t pay for all of the drugs that were sold to
him. Who tried to collect the extra money? It wasn’t Miss
Brown. It was Mr. Tackett.
Tr. at 251-53. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[8] Tackett contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his
offenses and his character. Article 7, Sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana
Constitution “authorize[] independent appellate review and revision of a
sentence imposed by the trial court.” Roush v. State, 875 N.E.2d 801, 812 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2007) (alteration in original). This appellate authority is implemented
through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Id. Revision of a sentence under Rule
7(B) requires the appellant to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate in
light of the nature of his offenses and his character. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B);
Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We assess the
trial court’s recognition or non-recognition of aggravators and mitigators as an
initial guide to determining whether the sentence imposed was inappropriate.
Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). However, “a
defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met
th[e] inappropriateness standard of review.” Roush, 875 N.E.2d at 812
(alteration original).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1410-CR-368| June 30, 2015 Page 5 of 8
[9] Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate
sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court’s judgment “should
receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222, 1224
(Ind. 2008). The principal role of appellate review is to attempt to “leaven the
outliers.” Id. at 1225. Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate at the
end of the day turns on “our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the
severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other facts that
come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224.
[10] Specifically, Tackett argues that his sentence is inappropriate because (1)
Brown, whom Tackett characterizes as being more culpable than he is, received
a lesser sentence than he received; (2) he suffers from schizophrenia; (3) he has
a substance abuse problem; and (4) he was actually deemed a moderate, and
not a high, risk to reoffend under the Indiana Risk Assessment standards. We
cannot, however, state that Tackett’s sentence is inappropriate.
[11] Tackett’s first contention relates to the nature of his offenses, in support of
which he points us to Cardwell. Particularly, Tackett relies on Cardwell in an
effort to portray his own offense as an outlier. He compares his executed
sentence of sixteen years to Brown’s executed sentence of six years and argues,
as he did to the trial court, that he “was the ‘less culpable’ participant [in their
crimes], as [he] did not actively participate in either of the controlled buys for
which he was charged and found guilty.” Appellant’s Br. at 9. But the trial
court expressly rejected this argument, and we cannot say that the court erred
when it did so. Indeed, at the January 27 sale of methamphetamine, Tackett
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1410-CR-368| June 30, 2015 Page 6 of 8
waved to the CS, and the sale did did not occur until Tackett reentered his
BMW. And as noted by the trial court, when the CS neglected to pay the full
price for the methamphetamine purchased on January 29, Tackett, not Brown,
attempted to “collect the extra money.” Tr. at 253.
[12] Further, Cardwell is inapposite here. First, Cardwell held that the trial court was
not required to compare two defendants’ sentences to each other. See 895
N.E.2d at 1226. Second, Tackett’s situation is unlike that present in Cardwell.
There, Cardwell received a thirty-four year sentence, and his co-defendant
received only an eighteen-month sentence, despite the fact that Cardwell was
either equally “or even less culpable.” Id. Here, Brown’s executed term is ten
years less than Tackett’s sentence, but Brown’s entire sentence is only four years
less than Tackett’s sentence, which is much different from the disparity present
in Cardwell. Moreover, Tackett ignores the fact that Brown pleaded guilty and
he did not. Therefore, Tackett’s sentence is not an outlier. The nature of his
offenses do not support a revision of his sentence, and we affirm in this respect.
[13] Tackett’s next three contentions—his schizophrenia, his substance abuse, and
his risk assessment—all relate to his character. Although, as noted above, the
trial court did err when it stated that Tackett was deemed a high risk to
reoffend, nevertheless we cannot say that Tackett’s character requires revision
of his sentence. As the trial court noted, Tackett has four prior felony
convictions, several of which are drug related, and one prior misdemeanor
conviction. Further, Tackett previously violated the terms of his community
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1410-CR-368| June 30, 2015 Page 7 of 8
corrections placement. Thus, Tackett’s sentence also is not inappropriate in
light of his character.
[14] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Friedlander, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1410-CR-368| June 30, 2015 Page 8 of 8