MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Jun 25 2018, 10:14 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
Joseph D. Gaunt Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
The Gaunt Law Office Attorney General of Indiana
Martinsville, Indiana
Evan Matthew Comer
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Craig Thacker, June 25, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
55A01-1711-CR-2714
v. Appeal from the Morgan Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Peter Foley, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No.
55D01-1606-F6-792
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01-1711-CR-2714| June 25, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] In May of 2016, Craig Thacker removed his electronic monitoring device and
disappeared for four days. On June 1, 2016, the State charged Thacker with
Level 6 felony escape and Class A misdemeanor theft and alleged him to be a
habitual offender. On August 7, 2017, Thacker pled guilty to Level 6 felony
escape in exchange for the dismissal of the theft charge and habitual offender
allegation. On September 11, 2017, the trial court sentenced Thacker to a two-
and-one-half-year executed sentence. Thacker contends that his sentence was
inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character. Concluding
that Thacker’s sentence was not inappropriate, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On May 11, 2016, Thacker was placed on home detention for fifty days
following a drug conviction. During that period, Thacker was required to wear
an electronic monitoring device. Approximately two weeks after being placed
on home detention, Thacker was ordered by Morgan County Community
Corrections (“community corrections”) to report for a drug screening. After
receiving that phone call, Thacker cut off the electronic monitoring device and
mailed it to community corrections. Community corrections, however, never
received the device.
[3] Thacker subsequently disappeared for four days. After he was found, he was
taken into custody and charged with Level 6 felony escape and Class A
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01-1711-CR-2714| June 25, 2018 Page 2 of 5
misdemeanor theft and alleged to be habitual offender. Thacker pled guilty to
the escape charge on August 7, 2017, in exchange for the dismissal of the theft
charge and habitual offender allegation. During sentencing, the trial court
found no mitigating circumstances, but did find the following aggravating
circumstances: (1) Thacker recently violated the terms of his probation, (2)
Thacker violated the terms of home detention, and (3) Thacker possessed a
significant criminal history. Thacker’s criminal record includes eleven
misdemeanors, twelve felonies, and three juvenile delinquency adjudications.
The trial court sentenced Thacker to two-and-one-half years in prison.
Discussion and Decision
[4] The sole issue for our review is whether Thacker’s two-and-one-half-year
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and character.
Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), “[t]he 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.” When reviewing such claims, we
“concentrate less on comparing the facts of the [case at issue] to others, whether
real or hypothetical, and more on focusing on the nature, extent, and depravity
of the offense for which the defendant is being sentence, and what it reveals
about the defendant’s character.” Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2008) (internal quotes and citations omitted). Thacker, as the defendant,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01-1711-CR-2714| June 25, 2018 Page 3 of 5
bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Sanchez v.
State, 891 N.E.2d 174, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
[5] With respect to the nature of the offense, Thacker cut off his electronic
monitoring device and disappeared for four days. The record shows that
Thacker claimed that he had a “panic attack” that caused him to intentionally
escape from home detention. Tr. Vol. I p. 24. The evidence also shows that
Thacker knew he was required to go to a drug screen around the time that he
escaped from home detention. While this escape is not the most egregious of
crimes, it does show an intentional abuse of his home detention and an inability
to respect the terms of his probation.
[6] As for his character, at age fifty, Thacker has amassed a significant criminal
record. Thacker’s criminal record includes eleven misdemeanors, twelve
felonies, and three juvenile delinquency adjudications. The record shows that
Thacker has received the benefit of probation, treatment, and short jail
sentences in those previous cases, but continues to reoffend. In total, Thacker
has been on probation nine times, violating the terms of his probation seven
times. As for treatment, the record shows that Thacker has been enrolled in
eight different programs for his drug use and has failed to complete
approximately half of those programs. Despite Thacker’s frequent contacts
with the criminal justice system, he has not chosen to reform himself. Based on
the above-mentioned evidence of Thacker’s character and the nature of his
offense, Thacker has failed to establish that his two-and-one-half-year sentence
was inappropriate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01-1711-CR-2714| June 25, 2018 Page 4 of 5
[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Baker, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01-1711-CR-2714| June 25, 2018 Page 5 of 5