FILED
MEMORANDUM DECISION Jun 30 2016, 7:26 am
CLERK
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
this Memorandum Decision shall not be and Tax Court
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
Steven Knecht Gregory F. Zoeller
Vonderheide & Knecht, P.C. Attorney General of Indiana
Lafayette, Indiana
Karl Scharnberg
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Christopher J. Moberg, June 30, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
79A05-1510-CR-1716
v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Steven P. Meyer,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
79D02-1507-F5-37
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1510-CR-1716 | June 30, 2016 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Christopher J. Moberg (“Moberg”) pled guilty to one count of Operating a
Motor Vehicle after Forfeiture of License for Life, a Level 5 Felony.1 The court
imposed a sentence of three years to be served with the Department of
Correction (“DOC”). Moberg takes exception to his placement within the
DOC. Finding his placement not inappropriate, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On July 2, 2015, Moberg was pulled over by law enforcement for driving a
motorcycle with an expired license plate. (Tr. at 17) During the course of that
investigation, the law enforcement officer discovered that Moberg’s driver’s
license had been suspended for life. (Tr. at 17) Accordingly, Moberg was
arrested and later charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle after Forfeiture of
License for Life.
[3] On September 3, 2015, Moberg entered a guilty plea without the benefit of a
plea agreement. On September 25, 2015, the trial court held a sentencing
hearing on this matter. Moberg requested a four-year sentence, two years with
community corrections, and two years suspended. (Tr. at 33) The State
requested a sentence of three years executed at the DOC. (Tr. at 37) The trial
court found as aggravating factors Moberg’s extensive criminal history,
1
Ind. Code § 9-30-10-17(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1510-CR-1716 | June 30, 2016 Page 2 of 5
particularly his offenses outside the realm of traffic violations; his history of
failing to comply with probation, parole, and community corrections; his recent
failure to report to community corrections; and the fact that the current offense
was committed while Moberg was on probation for another offense. (Tr. at 38-
43) As mitigating factors, the trial court noted Moberg’s status as a trustee at
the Tippecanoe County Jail; his participation in various programs at the jail,
particularly those aimed at assisting those suffering from substance abuse; his
good work history; his guilty plea in the absence of a plea agreement; and his
statement of remorse during sentencing proceedings. (Tr. at 43-45) Finding the
aggravating and mitigating factors in balance, the trial court sentenced Moberg
to three years to be served with the DOC. (Tr. at 45-46) Moberg now
challenges his placement within the DOC.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Moberg asserts on appeal that his sentence to the DOC was inappropriate under
Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), and thereby requests that we revise his three-year
sentence to be served in community corrections. According to Appellate Rule
7(B), we may revise a sentence “if, after due consideration of the trial court’s
decision,” we find the sentence “inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and the character of the offender.” Review of the location where a
sentence is to be served is an appropriate application of our authority under
Appellate Rule 7(B). Biddinger v. State, 868 N.E.2d 407, 414 (Ind. 2007); King v.
State, 894 N.E. 2d 265, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). However, such review is very
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1510-CR-1716 | June 30, 2016 Page 3 of 5
deferential to the trial court. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012),
reh’g denied. A defendant challenging the placement of a sentence must
convince us that the placement is itself inappropriate, not whether another
placement is more appropriate. Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 344 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2007).
[5] Moberg asserts on appeal that his placement in the DOC is inappropriate in
light of the nature of his offense and his good character, and he relies on the
following factors in support. Moberg was initially pulled over for driving with
an expired license plate, not because of erratic or dangerous driving behavior.
He caused no harm to any people or property, nor did he intend to do so.
Furthermore, in spite of his extensive criminal history, Moberg asserts he has
demonstrated good character in his employment, during his recent
incarceration, and by virtue of pleading guilty without the benefit of a plea
agreement. Because of these mitigating factors, Moberg claims placement in
community corrections is more appropriate; however, as we have stated, such a
showing is not what is required.
[6] Although these factors have significance, they do not demonstrate why
Moberg’s placement in the DOC is inappropriate. The only argument
advanced by Moberg on the inappropriateness of the location of the sentence is
his commitment to paying support for his daughters. However, a review of the
record shows that Moberg has no current legal obligation to pay child support.
The mother of his daughters agreed to abate child support, and Moberg owes
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1510-CR-1716 | June 30, 2016 Page 4 of 5
no support arrearage. Thus, the trial court’s order does not prevent Moberg
from fulfilling a legal duty to pay child support.
[7] Additionally, Moberg’s juvenile and adult criminal history is extensive, and it is
not limited to traffic-related offenses. Moberg’s criminal history includes
convictions for drug-related offenses, resisting law enforcement, and theft,
among others. He has been sentenced previously to alternative placements
without success. Moberg has had his probation revoked three times throughout
his life. Furthermore, he was on probation at the time of this offense. The
State has subsequently filed a petition to revoke his probation in that matter.
Also, on May 14, 2015, less than two full months before the current offense, he
was sentenced to three years to be served under community corrections and
failed to report. In light of this history of offenses and unsuccessful alternative
placements, the trial court’s order that Moberg serve his sentence in the DOC is
not inappropriate.
[8] Affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1510-CR-1716 | June 30, 2016 Page 5 of 5