MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing Aug 08 2017, 8:06 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral
CLERK
estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Leanna Weissmann Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Katherine Modesitt Cooper
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Zacharia Lockhart, August 8, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
16A01-1702-CR-430
v. Appeal from the Decatur Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Matthew Bailey,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
16D01-1606-F6-509
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A01-1702-CR-430 | August 8, 2017 Page 1 of 5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Zacharia Lockhart (Lockhart), appeals his sentence for
theft, a Level 6 felony, Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(1)(C)(i).
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Lockhart presents us with one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether
his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his
character.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On the evening of August 26, 2015, Noel Vaughn (Noel) returned home from
work. When he entered his bedroom, he noticed the dresser drawers had been
pushed in too far. Upon a closer examination, he discovered that money had
been taken—an older five dollar bill and some older two dollar bills, as well as
some half dollar coins. A jewelry box sat on top of the dresser. When he
opened up the box, Noel noticed that three necklaces, his old wedding ring, and
a tiger’s eye ring were missing. The tiger’s eye ring was very sentimental to
Noel as it had belonged to his father.
[5] Noel contacted his son, Nick Vaughn (Nick), who resided at Noel’s residence.
Nick informed him that Lockhart had been in the house that day but had left
sometime after Nick had fallen asleep. Lockhart was a frequent visitor to the
residence and had been in the house many times in the weeks before August 26,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A01-1702-CR-430 | August 8, 2017 Page 2 of 5
2015. After discussing the situation, Noel and Nick determined that Lockhart
had more than likely taken the items to a local pawn shop. When Noel visited
the pawn shop and described the items, the store employee informed him that
the jewelry had been sent to be melted down. The store receipt reflected that
Lockhart had pawned three necklaces and one ring on August 18, 2015, in
exchange for $241.90. After being contacted by Nick, Lockhart’s sister
eventually returned a five dollar bill, a two dollar bill, and Noel’s old wedding
ring.
[6] On June 21, 2016, the State filed an Information, charging Lockhart with theft,
as a Level 6 felony. On November 30, 2016, Lockhart was tried in abstentia. At
the close of the evidence, the jury found him guilty as charged. On January 30,
2017, the trial court sentenced Lockhart to 900 days executed, with 180 days
suspended to probation.
[7] Lockhart now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[8] Lockhart contends that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a
sentence which is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his
character. 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, the
Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense
and the character of the offender.” Under this rule, the question is not whether
another sentence is more appropriate, but whether the sentence imposed is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A01-1702-CR-430 | August 8, 2017 Page 3 of 5
inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The
principal role of appellate review is to “leaven the outliers;” it is “not to achieve
a perceived correct result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219,
1225 (Ind. 2008). The appropriateness of the sentence turns on this court’s
“sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage
done to others, and a myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.”
Id. at 1224. The defendant carries the burden of persuading this court that his
sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
To successfully carry his burden, “[t]he defendant must show that his sentence
is inappropriate in light of both his character and the nature of the offense.”
Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 633 (Ind. 2006).
[9] When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting
point to determine the appropriateness of a sentence. Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at
494. The sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is between six months and three
years, with the advisory sentence being one and one half years. See I.C. § 35-50-
2-7. Here, the trial court sentenced Lockhart to a sentence of 900 days
executed, with 180 days suspended. With respect to the nature of these
offenses, we reiterate that Lockhart stole money and jewelry, some of which
had sentimental value, of the father of a friend, while being a guest in the
father’s residence.
[10] Turning to Lockhart’s character, we note that, at age 25, Lockhart has a
criminal history which includes similar previous offenses. In 2013, Lockhart
was convicted of criminal mischief. In 2014, he pled guilty to misdemeanor
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A01-1702-CR-430 | August 8, 2017 Page 4 of 5
conversion and, the following year, he pled guilty to two Counts of level 6
felony theft. Lockhart received probation for both the misdemeanor and felony
charges, and he was on probation for the Level 6 felony theft when he
committed the instant offense. In addition, Lockhart had three pending cases in
two different counties. He has been arrested for Class A misdemeanor resisting
law enforcement and legend drug injection devices. Lockhart’s failure to
appear for trial demonstrates an obvious disrespect for the court and the legal
system. While we agree with Lockhart that some “pilfered possessions” were
returned, we also note that the evidence reflects that these items were returned
by Lockhart’s sister, not by him. (Appellant’s Br. p. 9). Although Lockhart
claims that he “didn’t cause serious harm to property,” we agree with the trial
court’s sentiment that we “don’t know if he harmed the property or not. He
stole the property.” (Transcript p. 120). In light of the evidence before us, we
conclude that Lockhart failed to persuade us that the nature of the crime and his
character provide a reason to revise his sentence.
CONCLUSION
[11] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court properly sentenced
Lockhart.
[12] Affirmed.
[13] Robb, J. and Pyle, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A01-1702-CR-430 | August 8, 2017 Page 5 of 5