MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Jun 18 2018, 11:10 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General
Brooklyn, Indiana
Evan Matthew Comer
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Derek Snapp, June 18, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-17
v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Sarah K. Mullican,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
84D03-1704-F3-1284
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-17 | June 18, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Derek A. Snapp appeals his six-year sentence imposed by the trial court
following his guilty plea to level 5 felony battery. He argues that his sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. He also
argues that the abstract of judgment contains an error, which the State
concedes. Finding that Snapp has not met his burden of demonstrating that his
sentence is inappropriate, we affirm the sentence and remand with instructions
to correct the abstract of judgment.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Snapp and his wife, J.S., were homeless and lived in their car. On April 15,
2017, while in their car, a drunken Snapp hit his wife. He then pulled out a
knife and threatened to slit her throat. She tried to leave the car, but Snapp
stopped her. J.S. filed a report with the Terre Haute Police claiming that Snapp
hit her on a daily basis. On April 21, 2017, Snapp struck J.S. multiple times
and spit in her face, and she again filed a report with the police soon after.
[3] The State originally charged Snapp with level 3 felony criminal confinement,
level 5 felony intimidation, level 6 felony strangulation, class A misdemeanor
domestic battery, and level 5 felony domestic battery (based on a prior
conviction for battering J.S.), as well as with being a habitual offender. The
State later amended the charges by reducing the confinement charge to a level 5
felony and dismissing the intimidation and strangulation charges. During jury
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-17 | June 18, 2018 Page 2 of 5
selection, Snapp verbally agreed to plead guilty to the two battery charges and
the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges.
[4] This agreement left sentencing to the trial court’s discretion. The trial court
found two primary aggravating circumstances during sentencing: (1) Snapp’s
lengthy criminal history and apparent pattern of violence; and (2) Snapp’s
violation of probation by battering his wife. The court found no mitigating
circumstances. The court merged the two convictions and sentenced Snapp to
six years, with five years executed and one year suspended to probation. This
appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
Section 1 – Snapp has failed to establish that his sentence is
inappropriate.
[5] Snapp invites this Court to reduce his sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate
Rule 7(B). “We may revise a sentence authorized by statute, 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.” Gibson v.
State, 51 N.E.3d 204, 215 (Ind. 2016) (citing Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)), cert.
denied. The defendant bears the burden of persuading the Court that his
sentence is inappropriate. Id. The principal role of appellate review is to
“attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial
courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not
to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-17 | June 18, 2018 Page 3 of 5
N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). 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. Appellate courts may consider the
appropriateness of the aggregate length of the sentence in addition to
considering whether a portion of the sentence is ordered suspended, executed,
“or otherwise crafted using any of the variety of sentencing tools available to
the trial judge.” Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010). The
question under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more
appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is
inappropriate. Hunt v. State, 43 N.E.3d 588, 590 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), opinion
on reh’g, trans. denied.
[6] With reference to the nature of the offense, the starting point selected by the
legislature as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed is the advisory
sentence. Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014). A level 5 felony carries
a sentencing range of one to six years, and an advisory sentence of three years.
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6. Snapp argues that there was nothing particularly
egregious about the battery. Although the battery itself was not egregious, the
surrounding circumstances involving the brandishing of a knife significantly
escalated the potential for deadly violence.
[7] With reference to Snapp’s character, he admitted that he battered J.S. and took
responsibility for his actions, albeit not until jury selection for his trial was
underway. Moreover, Snapp has a lengthy criminal history, which reflects
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-17 | June 18, 2018 Page 4 of 5
poorly on a person’s character. Snapp was convicted of battery resulting in
bodily injury in 2005, domestic battery in 2006, battery resulting in serious
bodily injury in 2012, and domestic battery with a prior conviction twice in
2016; J.S. was the victim in three of these batteries and a former girlfriend was
the victim of two. Snapp also has several traffic-, drug-, and alcohol-related
convictions. He attributes his criminal history to the stress of life and his use of
alcohol and drugs. His many contacts with the law gave him the opportunity to
reform himself through counseling, treatment, or otherwise, but he has failed to
take advantage of those opportunities. Snapp committed the battery while on
probation and has several prior probation violations, which also reflects poorly
on his character.
[8] In sum, Snapp has not met his burden of persuading this Court that the six-year
sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Accordingly, we affirm the
sentence.
Section 2 – Remand is necessary to correct the abstract of
judgment.
[9] Snapp points out that the abstract of judgment lists the original charges and not
the amended charges. The State properly concedes the error. We remand with
instructions to correct this error.
[10] Affirmed and remanded.
Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-17 | June 18, 2018 Page 5 of 5