Date: 06-06-2016

Case Style: Tahj R. Thomas v. State of Indiana

Case Number: 02A04-1511-CR-2069

Judge: Margret G. Robb

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Plaintiff's Attorney: Brian Reitz, Deputy Attorney General

Defendant's Attorney: Anthony S. Churchward, Deputy Public Defender

Description: Shortly after midnight on April 29, 2014, D.L. arrived at the apartment
complex where she lived. Her four-year-old daughter was sleeping in the back
seat of her vehicle. As she exited her vehicle, a man appeared and pointed a
gun at her as he instructed her to “give him what she had.” Appellant’s
Appendix at 14. D.L. dropped her purse, and a second armed man appeared.
The men instructed D.L. to walk away from her vehicle. When D.L. was
approximately two cars away, the second man, later identified as Thomas,
pointed a gun at her and ordered her to undress. As the first man walked back
to D.L.’s vehicle, eighteen-year-old Thomas ordered D.L. to get on the ground,
crawl toward him, and perform oral sex. D.L. complied. Thomas threatened
to kill D.L. and pointed the gun at D.L.’s head and back as she performed oral
sex. Thomas also forced D.L. to have sexual intercourse. At some point, he
noticed she was wearing an engagement ring and ordered her to take it off. He
pocketed the ring before warning D.L. he would “come back every night to f***
and rape her.” Id. Thomas and the other man eventually fled with D.L.’s
belongings. As soon as the men were gone, D.L. retrieved her daughter and ran
to her apartment. The police were called, and D.L. was transported to a
medical facility for a sexual assault examination. A DNA profile recovered
from D.L.’s underwear matched Thomas’s profile in the Combined DNA Index
System (CODIS). Subsequent forensic testing confirmed the DNA profile
recovered from D.L.’s underwear matched Thomas’s DNA.
[3] The State charged Thomas with rape as a Class A felony, criminal deviate
conduct as a Class A felony, and robbery as a Class B felony. Thomas pleaded
guilty to rape and criminal deviate conduct. In exchange, the State dismissed
the robbery charge, but other than requiring the sentence run consecutive to
sentences imposed under several other cause numbers, the agreement left
sentencing to the discretion of the trial court. The trial court found as
mitigating factors Thomas’s decision to plead guilty and his remorse. It
considered the following factors aggravating: (1) Thomas’s criminal history; (2)
the nature and circumstances of the offenses; (3) the extraordinary impact on
the victim; (4) that Thomas was out on bond when he committed the offenses;
and (5) that he previously received services through the juvenile court which
had proven unsuccessful. The trial court sentenced Thomas to forty years on
each count, to be served consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of eighty
years. The trial court ordered this sentence be served consecutive to the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1511-CR-2069 | June 2, 2016 Page 4 of 7
aggregate forty-year sentence he received on four separate armed robbery cases.
This appeal followed.
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
[4] Thomas contends his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offenses and his character.1 Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides, “The Court
may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the
trial court’s decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light
of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” The defendant
bears the burden of persuading this court that his or her sentence is
inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Whether
we regard a sentence as inappropriate turns on “the culpability of the defendant,
the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors
that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224
(Ind. 2008). We “focus on the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than the
trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence
on any individual count” in reviewing a defendant’s sentence. Id. at 1225. The
question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather
whether the sentence imposed in inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265,

1 A person who pleads guilty is entitled to contest on direct appeal the merits of a trial court’s sentencing decision where, as here, the trial court exercised discretion. Collins v. State, 817 N.E.2d 230, 231 (Ind. 2004).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1511-CR-2069 | June 2, 2016 Page 5 of 7
268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] unless
overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the
offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the
defendant’s character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples
of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).
II. Inappropriate Sentence
[5] As to the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting point the
legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime the defendant
committed. Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. Thomas pleaded guilty to rape and
criminal deviate conduct, both Class A felonies. A Class A felony carries a
possible sentence of twenty to fifty years, with an advisory sentence of thirty
years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4(a). The trial court sentenced Thomas to forty
years on each count, to be served consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of
eighty years.
[6] We conclude the nature of the offenses supports the sentence imposed. Thomas
forced D.L. to strip in a parking lot, ordered her to crawl towards him on her
hands and knees, and then raped her at gun point in close proximity to her four
year-old daughter. As he departed, he took her engagement ring and said he
planned to “come back every night to f*** and rape her.” Appellant’s App. at
14. As the State observed, Thomas “attempted to be particularly humiliating
and degrading to this victim.” Sentencing Hearing Transcript at 18. His cruelty

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1511-CR-2069 | June 2, 2016 Page 6 of 7
and complete disregard for human dignity warrants the eighty-year sentence the
trial court imposed.
[7] As to his character, Thomas argues we should consider his criminal history in
light of his age. We acknowledge Thomas’s five prior felony convictions arise
from arrests occurring when he was only seventeen or eighteen years old, but
we view this circumstance as reflecting poorly on his character. Thomas
committed at least five robberies in the span of nine months. He has four prior
convictions for armed robbery and a prior conviction for possession of a
handgun with altered identifying marks. While he was out on bond on two of
these cases, he robbed and raped D.L. at gunpoint, and he continued to commit
robberies thereafter.
[8] Although a defendant’s youth can, in some cases, constitute a significant
mitigating factor warranting leniency, this is not always the case. Coleman v.
State, 952 N.E.2d 377, 385 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). As our supreme court
explained, “Focusing on chronological age is a common shorthand for
measuring culpability, but for people in their teens and early twenties it is
frequently not the end of the inquiry. There are both relatively old offenders
who seem clueless and relatively young ones who appear hardened and
purposeful.” Ellis v. State, 736 N.E.2d 731, 736 (Ind. 2000). In this case, we are
not persuaded Thomas’s sentence is inappropriate because of his age. His spree
of armed robberies demonstrates an indifference to the law that cannot be

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1511-CR-2069 | June 2, 2016 Page 7 of 7
attributed to youthful indiscretion. Both the nature of the offenses and
Thomas’s character support the sentence imposed by the trial court.2

Outcome: Thomas’s sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. We therefore affirm his sentence.

Affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: