George Neloms v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
18A05-1705-CR-1007
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- On May 6, 2016, George Neloms was a passenger in a van where heroin was being sold; he admitted ingesting heroin during the trip.
- Police conducting surveillance attempted to stop the van; a chase ensued in which an officer fired through a side window, the van swerved, and a passenger (Jackson) was shot in the arm.
- The van was later found unoccupied; officers found Neloms lying near the road holding three plastic bags that later tested as >28 grams of heroin.
- Neloms was charged with Possession of a Narcotic Drug (Level 3 felony) and Resisting Law Enforcement (misdemeanor); the misdemeanor count was dismissed at trial start.
- Following a bench trial Neloms was convicted of the Level 3 felony; the trial court imposed the advisory nine-year sentence and recommended purposeful incarceration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove possession of ≥28g heroin | State: Officer found Neloms holding bags that contained >28g; Neloms admitted ingesting heroin and being present during a sale. | Neloms: Challenges conflicting testimony and contends evidence insufficient to prove knowing possession of required quantity. | Court: Evidence sufficient; reasonable inferences support conviction. |
| Abuse of sentencing discretion for nine-year advisory sentence | State: Advisory sentence appropriate given crime circumstances and defendant's history. | Neloms: Trial court erred by not finding his request for drug treatment a mitigating factor and by referencing dealing as aggravator. | Court: No abuse — treatment request not a significant mitigating factor; court's remarks about dealing were permissible observations of crime circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693 (Ind. 2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards and requirements for appellate review of sentencing statements)
- Hamilton v. State, 955 N.E.2d 723 (Ind. 2011) (advisory sentence as a legislative guideline and guidepost for sentencing)
- Golden v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (defendant bears heavy burden to show abuse of discretion when advisory sentence imposed)