MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 12 2019, 9:12 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
Christopher L. Clerc Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Columbus, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Courtney Staton
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Michael K. Thompson, August 12, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1000
v. Appeal from the Bartholomew
Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kelly S. Benjamin,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
03C01-1810-F4-5660
03C01-1810-F6-6065
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1000 | August 12, 2019 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] Michael Thompson appeals his sentence after he pleaded guilty to dealing in
methamphetamine, as a Level 4 felony, pursuant to a plea agreement.
Thompson raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court
abused its discretion when it did not find Thompson’s guilty plea to be a
significant mitigating factor. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On August 24, 2017, and September 12, 2017, Thompson delivered between
one and five grams of methamphetamine to a confidential informant working
with the Bartholomew County Joint Narcotics Enforcement Team. Thereafter,
the State executed a search warrant for Thompson’s residence. When
Thompson opened the door for the officers, the officers immediately “smelled
the odor of burnt marijuana and observed a cloud of smoke.” Appellant’s App.
Vol. 2 at 34. Inside, the officers seized various controlled substances and
paraphernalia.
[3] The State charged Thompson with two counts of dealing in methamphetamine,
each as a Level 4 felony, and one count of maintaining a common nuisance, as
a Level 6 felony. In February of 2019, Thompson agreed to plead guilty to one
count of dealing in methamphetamine, as a Level 4 felony. In exchange, the
State agreed to dismiss the remaining two counts and further agreed to a
maximum sentence of six years for Thompson’s Level 4 felony conviction.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1000 | August 12, 2019 Page 2 of 6
[4] The trial court held a sentencing hearing in April, and Thompson testified at
that hearing. Following the parties’ presentation of evidence and argument, the
court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Thompson as follows:
The Court notes at the outset the benefit to Mr. Thompson of the
remaining cause and the remaining counts being dismissed.
The Court has to look at certain factors; aggravating and
mitigating circumstances but also within that, looking at the
character of the defendant, the seriousness of the crime[,] and the
harm to the community.
Mr. Thompson what makes your case . . . frankly
perplexing . . . [is] you come across as trying to figure out what is
the best way to say something to make [you] look good. You
make comments and you[’]r[e] involved in circumstances and
with people and somehow you really have nothing to do with
any of it. You’re trying to remove yourself from the scenario as
best you can to make it look like you really didn’t do anything
too bad and that’s really concerning because you sold drugs.
You made money from it. You sold for money.
You talk about in your letter . . . about how this was . . . a
nightmare that won’t end. . . . People using drugs that is a
nightmare for them . . . . [Y]ou also contributed to a nightmare
for others and you quite frankly do not seem able to appreciate
that in any respect. None.
There’s an apology to your family and friends . . . but there’s no
apology to people you sold to; to the community; no
forthrightness, and what you actually did. And that’s actually,
quite frankly, really hard to listen to because the seriousness of
the crime is great. The damage it causes to people individually,
to families and to communit[ies] is great. And you’re saying you
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1000 | August 12, 2019 Page 3 of 6
sold drugs for almost 10 years, at least eight. But just to a couple
of people. . . .
. . . Instead of honesty, it appears you make excuses[. I]nstead of
owning up, you skirt the issues. Quite frankly, very little
appreciation for why you’re here.
The Court recognizes he has no past criminal convictions . . . .
The Court does find as aggravating his inability . . . to recognize
the seriousness of this offense or the crime which he committed[
and] a lack of remorse.
Tr. Vol. 2 at 36-37. The court then ordered Thompson to serve six years in the
Department of Correction, with three years executed and three years
suspended. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Thompson asserts on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion when it did
not recognize his guilty plea as a significant mitigating factor. Sentencing
decisions “rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and are reviewed on
appeal only for an abuse of discretion.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490
(Ind.) (“Anglemyer I”), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (2007) (“Anglemyer II”).
“An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and
effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable,
probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Id. (quotations and
citation omitted). A trial court may abuse its discretion by failing to enter a
sentencing statement, entering findings of aggravating and mitigating factors
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1000 | August 12, 2019 Page 4 of 6
unsupported by the record, omitting factors clearly supported by the record and
advanced for consideration, or giving reasons that are improper as a matter of
law. Id. at 490-91.
[6] “An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating factor
requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both
significant and clearly supported by the record.” Id. at 493. Although “a
defendant who pleads guilty deserves ‘some’ mitigating weight be given to the
plea in return,” the “significance of a guilty plea as a mitigating factor varies
from case to case.” Anglemyer II, 875 N.E.2d at 220-21. A plea “may not be
significantly mitigating when it does not demonstrate the defendant’s
acceptance of responsibility,” id., or when the decision to plead guilty is merely
a pragmatic one, e.g. Amalfitano v. State, 956 N.E.2d 208, 212 (Ind. Ct. App.
2011), trans. denied.
[7] Thompson has not met his burden on appeal to show that his guilty plea was
significant mitigating evidence. The trial court expressly found that, his plea of
guilty notwithstanding, Thompson had failed to demonstrate sincere acceptance
of responsibility for his actions. Further, Thompson’s decision to plead guilty
was surely pragmatic. The State’s case against Thompson, which was premised
on two controlled drug buys and the personal observations of officers inside
Thompson’s home, was very strong. Likewise, in exchange for his plea,
Thompson received, as the trial court recognized, the substantial benefits of a
dismissed Level 4 felony charge, a dismissed Level 6 felony charge, and a
sentencing cap of six years, only half of which the trial court ordered to be
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1000 | August 12, 2019 Page 5 of 6
executed. Accordingly, Thompson cannot show that the trial court abused its
discretion when it did not find his guilty plea to be a significant mitigator. We
affirm Thompson’s sentence.
[8] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1000 | August 12, 2019 Page 6 of 6