April M. Camos v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
02A05-1610-CR-2492
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- April Camos sold and assisted in multiple controlled cocaine transactions to a confidential informant between Oct 2014 and Feb 2015 and admitted drug dealing and minimal personal use after arrest.
- Police executed a search warrant at Camos’ apartment in March 2015 and found ~5.5 grams of cocaine, drug paraphernalia, a scale, and identifying mail; the apartment was about 264 feet from a school; school was in session during at least one sale and the search.
- Camos was charged with one Level 2 felony, four Level 4 felonies, and one Level 6 felony; she pled guilty and entered a drug-court diversion program that would have led to dismissal upon successful completion.
- While in the diversion program Camos repeatedly violated rules (positive tests, diluted sample, missed screens, dismissals from transitional facilities) and was ultimately dismissed from the program.
- At sentencing the trial court found mitigating factors (no prior convictions, remorse, some compliance, employment, dependent children) and aggravators (nature/circumstances of offenses and failure to rehabilitate). The court imposed concurrent sentences totaling 17 years (10 executed, 7 suspended, 2 probation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the aggregate 17-year sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B) | State: sentence is appropriate given multiple sales, proximity to a school, and program failures | Camos: sentence is inappropriate in light of her character and the nature of the offenses (lack of prior convictions, remorse, early drug use, family ties, partial compliance) | Court: affirmed; sentence not inappropriate — concurrent terms were at or below advisories and supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standard for reviewing sentencing decisions and requirement for trial-court reasons)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)
- Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 2012) (appellate review seeks to determine whether sentence is inappropriate, not to craft a different sentence)
- Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (consideration of criminal history and other record factors in Rule 7(B) review)