MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Feb 27 2017, 9:54 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), CLERK
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
regarded as precedent or cited before any and Tax Court
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
P. Stephen Miller Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Caryn N. Szyper
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ronnie D. Ball, Jr., February 27, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
02A03-1609-CR-2117
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Frances C. Gull,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
02D06-1503-F5-55
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1609-CR-2117 | February 27, 2017 Page 1 of 5
Statement of the Case
[1] Ronnie D. Ball, Jr. appeals his sentence following his conviction for corrupt
business influence, a Level 5 felony. Ball presents a single issue for our review,
namely, whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and his character. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On February 25, 2015, the State charged Ball with corrupt business influence.
The information alleged that, between July 21 and September 17, 2014, Ball,
along with “a group of individuals” that formed an “enterprise,” engaged in “a
pattern of racketeering activity . . . involving a series of thefts of miscellaneous
merchandise from Lowe’s” home improvement store. Appellant’s App. at 14.
The value of the stolen merchandise totaled $3,802.69.
[3] On August 3, 2015, Ball pleaded guilty as charged. The trial court took Ball’s
guilty plea under advisement, and Ball agreed to waive his “right to be
sentenced within thirty (30) days.” Id. at 30. The trial court deferred
sentencing and placed Ball in the Drug Court Diversion Program (“the
program”). Id. On June 30, 2016, Ball failed a drug test, testing positive for
cocaine and morphine, and the drug court case manager filed a petition to
terminate Ball from the program. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked
Ball’s participation in the program and scheduled a sentencing hearing.
[4] At the sentencing hearing, the trial court accepted Ball’s guilty plea and entered
judgment of conviction. In sentencing Ball, the trial court identified the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1609-CR-2117 | February 27, 2017 Page 2 of 5
following mitigators: his guilty plea; his acceptance of responsibility; and his
“efforts while in drug court.” Id. at 76. And the trial court identified as
aggravating Ball’s criminal history, which began in 1997 and includes one prior
felony and three misdemeanors. The trial court emphasized Ball’s “failed
efforts [at] rehabilitation” and prior lenient sentences, including community
service, unsupervised probation, transitional living, and drug court. Id. The
trial court sentenced Ball to the advisory term of three years. This appeal
ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Ball contends that his three-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature
of the offense and his character. As we have explained:
Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) permits an Indiana appellate court
to “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.” We assess the trial court’s
recognition or nonrecognition 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). The principal role of appellate review is to “leaven
the outliers.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind.
2008). A defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or
her sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review.
Roush v. State, 875 N.E.2d 801, 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
Robinson v. State, 61 N.E.3d 1226, 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1609-CR-2117 | February 27, 2017 Page 3 of 5
[6] On appeal, Ball asserts that the advisory sentence is inappropriate in light of the
nature of the offense because “his crime was a far cry from the most severe type
of corrupt business influence.” Appellant’s Br. at 10. And Ball maintains that
his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character based on his past military
service and his “limited criminal history” despite his difficult childhood, post-
traumatic stress disorder, and drug addiction. Id. We cannot agree.
[7] Regarding the nature of the offense, Ball and his cohorts stole a total of $3,802-
worth of merchandise from various Lowe’s stores over the course of more than
two months, “return[ed]” the stolen goods in exchange for Lowe’s gift cards,
and sold those gift cards to a pawn shop for cash. Appellant’s App. at 15. Ball
was one of seven people who planned and executed these thefts in order to
support their drug habits. Regarding his character, while we commend Ball’s
military service, the record supports the trial court’s determination that he has
failed to take advantage of lenient sentences and opportunities for rehabilitation
in the past. And Ball was given the opportunity to avoid the instant conviction
through participation in the Drug Court Diversion Program, but he was
terminated.1 Finally, at the time of sentencing, Ball owed approximately
$35,000 in child support for his two children. We cannot say that the advisory
1
The record shows that, during the program, Ball failed four drug screens and failed to submit to one drug
screen, and he did not complete the required community service hours.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1609-CR-2117 | February 27, 2017 Page 4 of 5
sentence of three years is inappropriate in light of the nature of Ball’s offense
and his character and, thus, we affirm his sentence. 2
[8] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and May, J., concur.
2
We note that the trial court recommended Ball for purposeful incarceration, whereby Ball would get
treatment for his drug addiction.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1609-CR-2117 | February 27, 2017 Page 5 of 5