MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 20 2018, 9:55 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Gregory L. Fumarolo Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Tyler G. Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jeffery C. Hatcher, Jr., August 20, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-787
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Wendy W. Davis,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
02D04-1706-F4-41
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-787 | August 20, 2018 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] Jeffery C. Hatcher, Jr. appeals his aggregate sentence of twelve years after he
pleaded guilty to three counts of dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug, each as a
Level 4 felony. Hatcher raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether
his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses or his
character. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On three different occasions in September and October of 2016, Hatcher, who
lived in Chicago but worked in Spencerville, Indiana, sold heroin to a
confidential informant for the Fort Wayne Police Department. The amount of
heroin Hatcher sold ranged from 1.6 grams to 2.9 grams. On June 21, 2017, the
State charged Hatcher with three counts of dealing in cocaine or a narcotic
drug, each as a Level 4 felony.
[3] In January of 2018, Hatcher pleaded guilty to each of the charges without the
benefit of a plea agreement. The court found Hatcher guilty and proceeded to
sentencing. Following a hearing, the court stated as follows:
As mitigating circumstances in this matter I will show that
[Hatcher] has accepted full responsibility . . . . I also hear
[Hatcher’s] remorse . . . . I will also give that the weight that it
deserves. It’s very easy to have remorse though when you get
caught. As aggravating circumstances though Mr. Hatcher you
were on parole when you picked up a level four dealing of heroin
in my community. You haven’t sat in my courtroom very much,
but I am cleaning up heroin addicts all over this community.
This is my community, and there are so many opiates and heroin
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-787 | August 20, 2018 Page 2 of 6
running around and fentanyl and all kinds of stuff that
individuals like you that are bringing it into my community and
selling it I take that very seriously, and I find it highly
aggravating. So you were on parole when you . . . were drug
dealing in my community number one. Also, I look at your past
criminal history. Back in 1998, in Illinois, in Chicago, you were
manufacturing and delivering [a] controlled substance. Then in
2001—you were convicted of that. In 2001, you also [had] the
exact same offense, manufactured and delivered drugs, that’s also
in Chicago. Then the Federal Government picked you[] up, and
you did Federal time in the Bureau of Prisons for possessing a
firearm. So now I’ve got . . . a drug dealer with a gun. Then in
Cook County you had another. So when you got out of Federal
Prison, and you’ve been to the Illinois Department of
Corrections, and then you get out, and what do you do? Oh, in
2015 you manufacture and deliver [a] controlled substance.
Drug dealing, drug dealing, gun, drug dealing. Now, you stand
before this Court and beg for mercy. . . . I find it highly
aggravating his five felony convictions. I also note you are
innocent until proven guilty, but you’ve got a gazillion charges
pending in Cook County, Illinois[,] right now. . . . I just want
you to see through my lens when I sentence you . . . . [Y]ou
have all of these people writing these nice letters about you.
You’ve had support. . . . [A]nd you’ve decided on your own
with all this love and support that you are going to continue to be
a drug dealer and carry around guns. So I find that the
[aggravating and] mitigating circumstances push him well above
the . . . middle sentence here. . . . [T]he facts and circumstances
in this case are highly aggravating. . . . [H]e is a multi-state
offender. . . . [A]ll prior attempts of rehabilitation have failed.
There’s nothing else I can do to make you understand how severe
I think these crimes are.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-787 | August 20, 2018 Page 3 of 6
Tr. Vol. II at 22-24. The court then sentenced Hatcher to twelve years in the
Indiana Department of Correction on each conviction, with each twelve-year
term to run concurrent with the other two. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Hatcher argues on appeal that his aggregate twelve-year sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses 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). “A person who
commits a Level 4 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two
(2) and twelve (12) years, with the advisory sentence being six (6) years.” Ind.
Code § 35-50-2-5.5 (2018).
[5] Hatcher asserts that his twelve-year term for three Level 4 convictions is
inappropriate. In particular, Hatcher contends that his sentence is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-787 | August 20, 2018 Page 4 of 6
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses because, “[a]lthough serious,
none of the offenses . . . was particularly egregious” because he had “sold
heroin . . . to someone he knew” and “the amounts involved . . . were toward
the middle to lower end of the range” that made his acts Level 4 felonies.
Appellant’s Br. at 17; see I.C. § 35-48-4-1(c)(1) (2016). Hatcher further argues
that, while he has four prior felony convictions for drug-related offenses, his
criminal history contains no juvenile adjudications “and no convictions as an
adult for misdemeanor offenses.” Appellant’s Br. at 17. Hatcher additionally
notes that he “accepted criminal responsibility by pleading guilty . . . without
benefit of a plea agreement,” that he had showed remorse, that his stepfather
had abused him as a child, and that his biological father is currently in prison.
Id. at 18.
[6] However, we cannot say that Hatcher’s sentence is inappropriate. Regarding
the nature of the offenses, Hatcher thrice crossed state lines to sell a cumulative
total of more than six grams of heroin in Indiana. Regarding his character,
Hatcher’s criminal history includes five prior felonies, four of which are
offenses relating to the manufacture or distribution of controlled substances,
and one of which is a federal firearms conviction. He was also on parole when
he committed the instant three felonies. Moreover, despite his assertions of
remorse, support, and a substance-abuse history, Hatcher nonetheless continues
to deal in narcotics. We cannot say that his aggregate term of twelve years in
the Department of Correction is inappropriate. We affirm his sentence.
[7] Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-787 | August 20, 2018 Page 5 of 6
Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-787 | August 20, 2018 Page 6 of 6