MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 31 2020, 8:11 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
Donald C. Swanson, Jr. Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Fort Wayne, Indiana Steven Hosler
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Joseph L. Arrington, August 31, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-766
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Wendy W. Davis,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
02D04-1811-F4-89
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-766 | August 31, 2020 Page 1 of 6
[1] Joseph L. Arrington appeals his sentence for two counts of dealing in cocaine
and asserts his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On August 22, 2018, Fort Wayne Police Detective John Greenlee worked with
a confidential informant to arrange a controlled buy from Arrington. On that
day, the confidential informant called Arrington and arranged to purchase
cocaine from him at a gas station in Fort Wayne. Detective Greenlee drove the
informant, who wore an electronic listening device, to the gas station, where the
informant stood in front of the station, smoked a cigarette, and waited for
Arrington. Detective Greenlee and other officers set up surveillance. Arrington
arrived at the gas station, exited his vehicle, walked toward a sidewalk with the
informant, and handed the informant cocaine, and the informant handed him
the buy money. The substance was later determined to contain cocaine and to
have a net weight of 1.12 grams.
[3] On September 6, 2018, Detective Greenlee and the confidential informant
arranged another controlled buy from Arrington. The informant contacted
Arrington, and they again agreed to meet at the gas station. Detective Greenlee
drove the informant to the gas station. Arrington arrived in a vehicle, the
informant exited Detective Greenlee’s vehicle, entered the rear seat of
Arrington’s vehicle, and gave the buy money to Arrington, and Arrington gave
him cocaine. The substance was determined to contain cocaine and to have a
net weight of 0.39 grams.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-766 | August 31, 2020 Page 2 of 6
[4] The State charged Arrington with: Count I, dealing in cocaine as a level 4
felony; and Count II, dealing in cocaine as a level 5 felony. A jury found
Arrington guilty on both counts. At sentencing, the court found the impact on
Arrington’s family to be a mitigating factor. It found his criminal history to be
a highly aggravating factor, stated his two counts for false informing showed
disdain for law enforcement, found his escape from community supervision to
be aggravating, noted he had his parole, suspended sentences, and work release
placement revoked, and stated that prior attempts at rehabilitation have failed
and the facts and circumstances of the case were aggravating. The court
sentenced Arrington to twelve years with two years suspended to probation on
Count I and five years on Count II and ordered the sentences served
concurrently.
Discussion
[5] Arrington claims his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offenses and his character. He argues that prison serves no rehabilitative
purpose and does not provide him with appropriate treatment and that
imposition of the advisory sentence and placement in community corrections
would be a much more effective and appropriate sentence in addressing his
addictions and mental health issues.
[6] Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “may revise a sentence authorized by
statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, [we find] that the
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character
of the offender.” Under this rule, the burden is on the defendant to persuade
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-766 | August 31, 2020 Page 3 of 6
the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State,
848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
[7] Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5 provides that a person who commits a level 4 felony
shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two and twelve years with the
advisory sentence being six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 provides that a person
who commits a level 5 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between
one and six years with the advisory sentence being three years.
[8] Our review of the nature of the offense reveals that Arrington sold cocaine with
a net weight of 1.12 grams to a confidential informant working with law
enforcement on August 22, 2018, and sold cocaine with a net weight of 0.39
grams to the confidential informant on September 6, 2018.
[9] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that, according to the
presentence investigation report (“PSI”), Arrington stated he received Social
Security disability and suffers from breathing problems, hand tension problems,
shoulder problems, and panic attacks. He denied having ever been diagnosed
with any mental illnesses. With respect to substance abuse, Arrington reported
that he began using marijuana at twenty-two years of age, that he used once per
month until age forty-one, and that his last use was at age forty-seven. The PSI
states that Arrington denied the use of cocaine and all other illegal substances.
It states that he indicated he participated in substance abuse treatment while
incarcerated in the Indiana Department of Correction in 2000 and at Brown
and Associates in Fort Wayne in 2003.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-766 | August 31, 2020 Page 4 of 6
[10] The PSI further reveals that Arrington, who was born in 1966, was given
informal adjustments as a juvenile for shoplifting, possession of stolen property,
assault and battery, and fleeing a police officer and was adjudicated delinquent
for assault and battery, truancy, burglary, gambling, and shoplifting. As an
adult, he was convicted of burglary as a class C felony in 1984, robbery as a
class C felony in 1985, operating without proof of financial responsibility as a
misdemeanor in 1992, burglary as a class C felony in 1993, possession of
cocaine or narcotic drug as a class D felony and possession of marijuana, hash
oil, or hashish and resisting law enforcement as class A misdemeanors in 2002,
false informing and unauthorized absence from home detention as
misdemeanors in 2004, escape as a class D felony in 2005, “Never Receive
License, Misdemeanor” in 2006, attempted possession of a controlled substance
by subterfuge as a class D felony and leaving the scene of an accident as a
misdemeanor in 2008, theft as a class D felony in 2011, “Resisting Law
Enforcement/Use of Vehicle” as a level 6 felony and false informing as a
misdemeanor in 2014, driving while suspended as a class A misdemeanor in
2017, and resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor in 2019.
Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 23-24. The PSI states that Arrington has
had his parole revoked once, his suspended sentence revoked three times, his
work release placement revoked once, his probation revoked twice, his home
detention placement modified once, and his home detention placement revoked
once. The PSI also provides that Arrington’s overall risk assessment score
using the Indiana Risk Assessment System places him in the high risk to
reoffend category.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-766 | August 31, 2020 Page 5 of 6
[11] After due consideration and in light of his criminal history, we conclude that
Arrington has not sustained his burden of establishing that his sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
[12] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Arrington’s sentence.
[13] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-766 | August 31, 2020 Page 6 of 6