Tricia A. Davis Williams v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 61
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Tricia A. Davis Williams, former office manager for H & R Construction, embezzled funds: 34 unauthorized payments ($21,721.40) and 24 overtime false claims ($4,008.88) from Jan 2013–May 2014; she admitted guilt.
- Charged with Class D felony theft; State alleged habitual offender but dismissed that allegation in plea deal.
- Williams entered a negotiated plea to Class D felony theft; the written plea stated it was not an open plea and included a waiver of certain appeal rights, but also described rights applicable to an open plea.
- At sentencing Williams sought a 36-month sentence executed on home detention, citing rehabilitation efforts and personal circumstances; probation recommended 3 years with 2 executed, 1 suspended.
- The trial court found numerous aggravators (repeat thefts, breach of trust, prior similar offense while on probation, planning and financial harm to a small business) and some mitigators (guilty plea, hardship to child, resumed treatment), questioned Williams’ credibility, and imposed 3 years executed in the Department of Correction.
- On appeal the State cross-moved to dismiss based on the plea waiver; Williams challenged the placement (DOC vs home detention) and argued true change of behavior merited a different placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams waived appellate review of her sentence by plea agreement | State: plea contract waived Williams’ right to appeal sentence because plea was not an open plea | Williams: plea language was ambiguous and trial court treated it as an open plea; she may appeal | Court: plea was ambiguous and construed against State; trial court treated it as open; appeal not dismissed |
| Whether trial court abused discretion or imposed an inappropriate placement (DOC vs home detention) | State: aggravators and credibility issues support DOC placement; sentence within statutory range | Williams: demonstrated rehabilitation, changed behavior, and mitigating circumstances warrant home detention execution | Court: no abuse; trial court properly weighed credibility and aggravators outweighed mitigators; DOC placement not inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Clair v. State, 901 N.E.2d 490 (Ind. 2009) (plea agreement contractual once accepted)
- Creech v. State, 887 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. 2008) (defendant may waive appellate review of sentence in plea agreement)
- Allen v. State, 865 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. 2007) (definition and consequences of an open plea)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (trial court discretion in open pleas limited only by Constitution and statutes)
- Russell v. State, 34 N.E.3d 1223 (Ind. 2015) (contract construed against the drafting party—the State)
- Pickens v. State, 767 N.E.2d 530 (Ind. 2002) (trial court credibility determinations at sentencing are proper)
- Henderson v. State, 769 N.E.2d 172 (Ind. 2002) (trial court not required to credit all proffered mitigating factors)
- King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (placement is an appropriate focus for appellate review under Rule 7(B))
- Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (advisory sentence is the starting point for appropriateness review)
- Holloway v. State, 950 N.E.2d 803 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (assessing whether offense is more/less egregious than typical)
- Aslinger v. State, 2 N.E.3d 84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (broad consideration of offender’s character)