Stacey Jo Caton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
53A05-1607-CR-1672
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 24, 2017Background
- Caton pled guilty (consolidated under Cause No. 857) to seven offenses across four causes, including three Level 5 felony counts of trafficking with an inmate for mailing Suboxone to her incarcerated husband on three dates.
- She also pleaded guilty to two Class D thefts, one Class A misdemeanor check deception, and one Class A misdemeanor OWI (BAC .25).
- At sentencing the court gave concurrent two-year sentences (time served) for the thefts, fines/restitution for the check deception, 32 days and a license suspension for the OWI, and consecutive below-advisory terms (2.5, 2.5, and 2 years) on the three trafficking counts for an aggregate seven-year sentence.
- Caton has an extensive criminal history with repeated probationary diversions, prior participation in Drug Treatment Court, and multiple relapses and reoffenses after treatment.
- The trial court deferred sentencing to allow substance-abuse treatment but issued a warrant after Caton tested positive for methamphetamine post-treatment; at sentencing the court declined to recommend Purposeful Incarceration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 7-year aggregate sentence for three Level 5 trafficking convictions is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | State: sentence is within statutory bounds and supported by defendant’s repeated criminal history and failure of community-based treatment | Caton: sentence is inappropriate given the nature of the offenses (mailing Suboxone) and her character (addiction, poor health, desire to reunite with children); urged leniency/Purposeful Incarceration | Affirmed: sentence not inappropriate; defendant’s character and repeated relapses justify aggregate seven-year term |
| Whether trial court should have recommended Purposeful Incarceration | State: court discretion to decline because of concerns about defendant’s sobriety commitment | Caton: requested Purposeful Incarceration to address substance abuse | Affirmed: trial court properly exercised discretion; placement in DOC not inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274 (Ind. 2014) (explains appellate authority to review and revise sentences)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (App. R. 7(B) standard and role of appellate review)
- Inman v. State, 4 N.E.3d 190 (Ind. 2014) (quotes App. R. 7 standard)
- Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 2012) (calls sentencing review deferential to trial court)
- Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. 2013) (factors for assessing appropriateness include culpability and harm)
- Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2013) (principal role of appellate review is to address outliers)
- King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (clarifies App. R. 7(B) inquiry not to find the single "correct" sentence)
- Slone v. State, 11 N.E.3d 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (discusses when multiple offenses constitute a single episode of criminal conduct)
- Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (timing/simultaneity guide episode-of-conduct analysis)