Mar'Quita D. Thomas v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
02A03-1706-CR-1359
Ind. Ct. App.Nov 30, 2017Background
- In September–October 2016, Mar’Quita D. Thomas lived with her girlfriend B.R. and B.R.’s four children; police were called for domestic incidents on Sept. 30 and Oct. 2.
- On Sept. 30 B.R. reported Thomas broke a window and struck her; police photographed a broken window.
- On Oct. 2 officers returned after a second 911 call and found Thomas by a side door holding a gasoline can, smelling of gasoline and alcohol; officers recovered two lighters and a partially burnt piece of paper at the door threshold.
- A fire investigator found empty gasoline containers on the property, a burnt piece of paper intentionally placed on the threshold, and opined the paper had been ignited and gasoline had been poured, indicating an attempted arson.
- Thomas testified she was intoxicated, tripped and spilled gasoline while handling lawnmower fuel and charcoal; the State presented a jail-call recording in which Thomas admitted breaking the window.
- A jury convicted Thomas of attempted arson (Level 4 felony) and criminal mischief (Class B misdemeanor); she was sentenced to an aggregate executed term of six years plus 180 days in the DOC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Thomas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted arson | Evidence (gasoline smell on person/yard, empty cans, lighters, burnt paper placed at threshold, arson expert opinion) supports a substantial step toward arson | Defense testimony offered innocent explanations (spilled gas, tripping, cookout); challenges to witness credibility | Conviction affirmed — evidence sufficient to support attempted arson |
| Sufficiency of evidence for criminal mischief (window) | 911 reports, officer photos, and jail-call admission that Thomas broke the window support conviction | Argues B.R. recanted at trial and has credibility problems; unclear how window was broken | Conviction affirmed — jury could reasonably find Thomas broke the window |
| Sentencing: trial court’s finding of criminal history as aggravator / denial of alternative placement | Court relied on prior adult convictions, juvenile contacts, prior revocation, and untreated alcohol problems to justify aggravation and DOC sentence | Thomas urged her record supported mitigation and that strong family support warranted alternative sentencing | No abuse of discretion — court permissibly treated criminal history as aggravator and denied alternative placement |
| Appellate Rule 7(B) appropriateness of sentence | Six-year executed term (advisory sentence) and 180 days for misdemeanor are warranted by offense nature and offender’s history | Thomas argued only three years should be executed with remainder suspended given employment and limited recent convictions | Sentence not inappropriate under 7(B); affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffith v. State, 59 N.E.3d 947 (Ind. 2016) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility)
- Buelna v. State, 20 N.E.3d 137 (Ind. 2014) (inference standard for sufficiency)
- Thacker v. State, 62 N.E.3d 1250 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (rejecting appellate reweighing of evidence)
- Williams v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1154 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (trial court discretion on mitigating factors)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (requirements for challenging sentencing mitigators)
- Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 842 (Ind. 2017) (advisory sentence as legislative starting point)
- Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 2012) (App. R. 7(B) review framework)
- King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (App. R. 7(B) principles)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (deferential appellate review of sentences)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (burden on defendant in appellate sentence review)