Moore v. State

1

Reonte Moore, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

No. 23A-CR-596

Court of Appeals of Indiana

January 17, 2024

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.

Appeal from the Wells Circuit Court The Honorable Kenton W Kiracofe, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 90C01-2110-F1-3

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Justin R. Wall Wall Legal Services

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Sierra A. Murray Deputy Attorney General Thomas A Tuck Certified Legal Intern

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FOLEY, JUDGE.

[¶1] Reonte Moore ("Moore") pleaded guilty to attempted murder,^[1] a Level 1 felony, and admitted to a sentencing enhancement for the use of a firearm in the offense.^[2] The trial court sentenced Moore to an aggregate sentence of sixty years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction. Moore appeals his sentence and raises the following restated issues for our review:

I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him because the court purportedly omitted several significant mitigating factors; and

II. Whether his maximum sixty-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.

[¶2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[¶3] On the morning of October 22, 2021, Moore and Louis Robinson ("Robinson") were working at Berne Apparel in Ossian, Indiana when they had a disagreement. Moore, who had been acting extremely aggressive and irritated, told Robinson to go outside. Moore then called his girlfriend, Jayana Herman ("Herman"), and told her to come to Berne Apparel. Herman arrived and provided Moore with a handgun. Meanwhile, Robinson had gone outside to the parking lot and was walking away from Moore. Moore intercepted Robinson as he walked away, approached him within a couple of feet, and then shot Robinson approximately eight times at close range.^[3] Robinson attempted to run away, but Moore chased after him. After shooting Robinson, Moore ran back to Herman's vehicle, and they drove away. A witness immediately called 911 to report the shooting and gave a description of Moore and the vehicle in which he fled the scene. Robinson was transported to the hospital in critical condition.

[¶4] Shortly after the shooting, police initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle in which Moore and Herman were traveling. When they were pulled over, Herman was driving the vehicle, and Moore was in the passenger seat. While conducting the traffic stop, the officer smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle and observed green, leafy plant material in plain view inside the vehicle. The officer also saw a black, nine-millimeter automatic handgun on the passenger floorboard of the vehicle near where Moore was sitting. The handgun was loaded with twelve assorted nine-millimeter rounds. The police found several nine-millimeter shell casings at the scene of the shooting. After being stopped, Moore immediately informed the officer that he was on probation. After interviewing Herman, the police learned that Moore was associated with the street gang known as GDN and that Moore was the primary suspect in a recent shooting where Herman was shot six times.

[¶5] On October 25, 2021, the State charged Moore with Level 1 felony attempted murder and Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.^[4] The State also sought a sentencing enhancement for use of a firearm in the offense. A jury trial commenced in January 2023. However, Moore and the State eventually reached a plea agreement. On January 24, 2023, the morning of the second day of the jury trial, Moore pleaded guilty to Level 1 felony attempted murder and admitted to the use of a firearm in the commission of the offense in exchange for dismissal of the Level 4 felony charge. After a factual basis was given, the trial court accepted Moore's guilty plea and took the plea agreement under advisement until sentencing.

[¶6] At the sentencing hearing held on March 15, 2023, a video of the shooting was admitted into evidence, and a victim impact statement by Robinson was read into evidence. In the statement, Robinson stated that, after Moore shot him approximately eight times, he had extensive damage to his intestines and still experienced pain that sometimes interfered with walking and eating. He also stated that he has large medical bills that caused him to be in debt. Robinson further said that he struggled to physically play with his children and that he had experienced depression and difficulty sleeping. He also had trouble being in groups of people due to a fear that someone would harm him. Moore put forth several mitigating factors for the trial court's consideration, including that he (1) was remorseful; (2) grew up in a violent community and culture; (3) had a substance abuse problem; (4) was previously diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, fetal alcohol syndrome, schizophrenia, intermittent explosive disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder; (5) pleaded guilty; (6) was young; and (7) had converted to Islam while incarcerated.

[¶7] The trial court identified several aggravating factors: (1) Moore's extensive delinquent and criminal history, which included many crimes of violence and offenses involving a firearm; (2) allegations that he committed two other batteries while in jail for this offense; (3) prior attempts at rehabilitation have failed with him committing new offenses when assigned to alternative placements; (4) he was on probation for robbery when he committed the present offense; (5) he was a high risk to reoffend; (6) the danger his actions posed to the other people present when he committed the offense; and (7) his lack of sincere remorse in that he attempted to justify his actions and blame the victim. Tr. Vol. III pp. 171-78. The trial court found two mitigating circumstances- Moore's guilty plea and his mental health diagnoses of fetal alcohol syndrome and intermittent explosive disorder. Id. at 173, 175.

[¶8] The trial court declined to find Moore's age mitigating because over the past decade, he had demonstrated increasingly violent conduct. It also declined to find the fact that Moore grew up and lived in a violent community as mitigating because the court found his conduct was unacceptable regardless of the community or culture in which he lived. It went on to state, "[w]hile it may be part of the culture where Mr. Moore lives in Allen County, it is simply unacceptable here, and there's no place for it in this community." Id. at 175. Before imposing the sentence, the trial court explained its decision:

[T]here's simply no place in this community or in this society for someone who is this violent. Regardless of what the cause of that violence might be, whether that's a mental health issue, fetal alcohol syndrome, whatever, there's simply no room[,] and the community needs to be assured that they can be safe from people like [ ] Moore.

Id. at 177. In pronouncing Moore's sentence, the trial court stated that Moore was in the class of offenders considered "the worst of the worst" and explained that Moore's sentence was meant to ensure that he did not harm another person in his lifetime. Id. The trial court sentenced Moore to forty years for Level 1 felony attempted murder, enhanced by twenty years for the use of a firearm in the commission of the offense, resulting in an aggregate executed sentence of sixty years. Moore now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Abuse of Discretion

[¶9] Moore contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him because the court should have identified additional significant mitigating factors. Specifically, he asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to find as mitigating factors his young age, his mental health diagnoses, his guilty plea, and the fact that he grew up in a violent community. Sentencing decisions lie within the sound discretion of the trial court. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008). An abuse of discretion will be found where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn from them. Hudson v. State, 135 N.E.3d 973, 979 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019). A trial court may abuse its discretion in several ways, including by: (1) failing to enter a sentencing statement; (2) entering a sentencing statement that includes aggravating and mitigating factors unsupported by the record; (3) entering a sentencing statement that omits reasons that are clearly supported by the record; or (4) entering a sentencing statement that includes reasons improper as a matter of law. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490-91 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). Because the trial court no longer has any obligation to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors against each other when imposing a sentence, a trial court cannot now be said to have abused its discretion by failing to properly weigh such factors. Id. at 491.

[¶10] Moore first asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to find that his young age was a significant mitigating factor. An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating circumstance requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record. Davis v. State, 173 N.E.3d 700, 704 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021) (citing Rascoe v. State, 736 N.E.2d 246, 249 (Ind. 2000)). The trial court is not obligated to...