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 24 2017, 6:37 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kevin Wild Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General
Laura R. Anderson
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Robert Shelton, August 24, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1703-CR-581
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Stanley E. Kroh,
Appellee-Plaintiff Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G03-1607-F3-28376
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-581 | August 24, 2017 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary
[1] While on parole for a rape conviction, Robert Shelton grabbed a woman’s purse
and punched her in the face and head several times when she refused to let go
of it. The State charged him with level 3 felony attempted robbery and alleged
that he was a habitual offender based on two prior robbery convictions. A jury
found him guilty of attempted robbery, and he admitted to being a habitual
offender. The trial court sentenced him to fourteen years for the attempted
robbery, enhanced by sixteen years for his habitual offender status, for an
aggregate sentence of thirty years executed.
[2] On appeal, Shelton asks us to reduce his sentence, claiming that it is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Shelton
minimizes the seriousness of the offense and his criminal history and has failed
to carry his burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate.
Therefore, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Shortly after 10:00 a.m. on July 22, 2016, Emily Longnecker arrived at a
downtown Indianapolis shopping center to pick up some dry cleaning. She was
getting out of her car with her purse in her hand when she was approached by
Shelton, who had been released on parole for a rape conviction three months
earlier. He said, “Ma’am, can I ask you something?” Tr. Vol. 2 at 39.
Longnecker had been asked for money by people making similar requests, and
she replied, “Sorry, sir, I don’t have any money today on me, just credit.” Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-581 | August 24, 2017 Page 2 of 8
Shelton repeated his question, and Longnecker repeated her answer. Shelton
then grabbed Longnecker’s purse, and she “grabbed back” and engaged in “a
tug of war[.]” Id. at 40. Shelton said, “Give me your money. I know you have
money.” Id. at 41. Longnecker wrested her purse from Shelton, who punched
her “four or five times” in the face and head. Id. Longnecker screamed, and
Shelton ran around the front of her car. She chased him down the street, and
eventually he was caught and restrained by bystanders. A police officer arrived
and arrested Shelton. Longnecker’s face “was throbbing for a few hours
afterwards[,]” and she suffered some bruising and a daylong headache despite
receiving a shot “for the pain in [her] head and [her] face” at an urgent care
center. Id. at 47, 48.
[4] The State charged Shelton with level 3 felony attempted robbery and alleged
that he was a habitual offender based on two prior robbery convictions. A jury
found Shelton guilty of attempted robbery, and he admitted to being a habitual
offender. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found several aggravating
factors (including Shelton’s criminal history and his commission of the crime
while on parole “for a very serious offense”) and several mitigating factors
(including Shelton’s upbringing, drug addiction, and apology to Longnecker at
the hearing). Id. 179. The court found that the aggravators outweighed the
mitigators and that Shelton’s actions justified “a sentence well above the
advisory[.]” Id. at 181. The court sentenced Shelton to fourteen years for the
attempted robbery, enhanced by sixteen years for his habitual offender status,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-581 | August 24, 2017 Page 3 of 8
for an aggregate sentence of thirty years executed. Shelton now appeals his
sentence.
Discussion and Decision
[5] “Article 7, Section 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorizes this Court to
independently review and revise a sentence imposed by the trial court.” Neville
v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1252, 1266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied (2013).
Shelton asks us to reduce his sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B),
which 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.” “[W]e must and should exercise deference to a trial court’s
sentencing decision, both because Rule 7(B) requires us to give ‘due
consideration’ to that decision and because we understand and recognize the
unique perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.” Rutherford v.
State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The principal role of appellate
review of sentences should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, “not to achieve
a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219,
1225 (Ind. 2008). “[A]ppellate review should focus on the forest—the aggregate
sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts,
or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Id.
[6] Whether we regard a sentence as appropriate “turns on our sense of the
culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-581 | August 24, 2017 Page 4 of 8
others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224.
“When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence under Rule 7(B), we may
consider all aspects of the penal consequences imposed by the trial court in
sentencing the defendant, including whether a portion of the sentence was
suspended.” Prater v. State, 59 N.E.3d 314, 318 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “[T]he
question under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more
appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is
inappropriate.” King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “The
defendant has the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate.”
Id. at 267.
[7] The advisory sentence is the starting point that the legislature has selected as an
appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Erickson v. State, 72 N.E.3d 965,
975 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. The sentencing range for a level 3 felony
is three to sixteen years, with an advisory sentence of nine years. Ind. Code §
35-50-2-5(b). If, as in Shelton’s case, a person convicted of level 3 felony
attempted robbery has a prior unrelated felony conviction, the trial court may
suspend only that part of a sentence that exceeds the minimum sentence. Ind.
Code § 35-50-2-2.2(b). Shelton’s sentence for attempted robbery was enhanced
due to his habitual offender status; the range for such an enhancement is six to
twenty years, none of which may be suspended. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(i).
Thus, Shelton could have been sentenced from as few as nine to as many as
thirty-six years, only some of which could have been suspended.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-581 | August 24, 2017 Page 5 of 8
[8] Regarding the nature of the offense, Shelton claims that he “did little if
anything beyond the minimum necessary to meet the requirements” of level 3
felony attempted robbery. Appellant’s Br. at 12. Robbery is the knowing or
intentional taking of property from another person by using or threatening the
use of force on any person. Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1(a). “A person attempts to
commit a crime when, acting with the culpability required for commission of
the crime, the person engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step
toward commission of the crime.” Ind. Code § 35-41-5-1(a). Except for
murder, “[a]n attempt to commit a crime is a felony or misdemeanor of the
same level or class as the crime attempted.” Id. A baseline robbery (or
attempted robbery) is a level 5 felony, which carries a sentencing range of one
to six years and an advisory term of three years. Ind. Code §§ 35-42-5-1(a), 35-
50-2-6(b). The offense is elevated to a level 3 felony if it results in bodily injury
to any person other than a defendant. Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1(a). “‘Bodily
injury’ means any impairment of physical condition, including physical pain.”
Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-29.
[9] During his attempt to take Longnecker’s purse, Shelton struck her not once, but
four or five times in the face and head, which caused bruising, swelling, and a
headache that lasted all day despite an injection of pain medication. Moreover,
as the State observes, Shelton committed the crime “in a public area and in
broad daylight[,]” thereby “taking away any sense of security this victim, or any
person, would have going about the city engaging in routine errands.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-581 | August 24, 2017 Page 6 of 8
Appellee’s Br. at 11. Indeed, Longnecker told Shelton at the sentencing
hearing,
[W]ith that attack, you have taken some of the peace I once felt
walking in this city in broad daylight and in public, in the
sunshine just going about my daily life. Some days have been a
challenge, because if you’re not safe in broad daylight going to
the dry cleaners in a public place at 10:30 in the morning, where
are you really safe?
Tr. Vol. 2 at 163. Thus, the nature of Shelton’s offense is not as “ordinary” as
he would have us believe. Appellant’s Br. at 12.
[10] As for Shelton’s character, one relevant consideration is his criminal history.
Garcia v. State, 47 N.E.3d 1249, 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied (2016).
“The significance of criminal history varies based on the gravity, nature, and
number of prior offenses in relation to the current offense.” Id. Shelton’s
criminal history dates back to 1987, when he was convicted of misdemeanor
battery at age nineteen and class C felony robbery at age twenty. His probation
for the robbery conviction was revoked, and he was ordered to serve four years
executed. In 1989, he was convicted of class B felony robbery, for which he
received a ten-year executed sentence, and class D felony theft, for which he
received a two-year executed sentence. In 1997, he was convicted of class A
misdemeanor driving while suspended, for which he received a one-year
suspended sentence. That same year, he was also convicted of class B felony
rape and was found to be a habitual offender for the first time. He received a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-581 | August 24, 2017 Page 7 of 8
forty-year executed sentence and was released on parole in April 2016, only
three months before he attempted to rob Longnecker.
[11] The record before us supports the State’s blunt assessment that “[t]he only time
[Shelton] is not committing crimes is when he is incarcerated.” Appellee’s Br.
at 13. He has a troubling history of inflicting sexual and physical violence on
women and taking other people’s property by force or threat of force. He has
violated both probation and parole, and his prior habitual offender designation
and incarcerations have failed to deter him from engaging in criminal activity.
Shelton obtained several degrees and trade certifications in prison, but he failed
to put them to good use after his release. According to Shelton’s presentence
investigation report, at the time of his arrest he was employed as a plane loader
at $13.95 per hour and was “very stable” financially, which begs the question of
why he attempted to steal a woman’s purse in a parking lot. Appellant’s App.
Vol. 2 at 108. Shelton admitted to being a habitual offender and apologized to
Longnecker at sentencing, but, as the trial court recognized, he was forty-nine
years old and had “not been rehabilitated” despite three decades of encounters
with the criminal justice system. Tr. Vol. 2 at 181. Shelton has failed to carry
his burden of persuading us that his thirty-year executed sentence is
inappropriate, and therefore we affirm.
[12] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-581 | August 24, 2017 Page 8 of 8