Teddy E. Shoffner v. State of Indiana

On April 26, 2017, officers from the Tippecanoe County Drug Task Force went

to an apartment in Lafayette, Indiana, to investigate “numerous complaints and

tips that [they] had received about . . . drug use and drug sales.” (Transcript

Vol. II, p. 102). When the officers arrived at the apartment building, they

encountered Shoffner in the driveway parallel to the apartment in question.

Shoffner was fixing the stereo of his Ford truck, and he informed the officers

that he did not live at the apartment but had permission work on his truck.

[5] The officers proceeded to the apartment and knocked on the door. Jennifer

Johnson (Johnson) opened the door, and the officers conveyed the purpose for

their visit. Johnson welcomed the officers and consented to the search of her

apartment.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1622 | February 8, 2019 Page 3 of 8



[6] During the search, the officers found a container with a false bottom on the

bedroom nightstand. Inside the container, the officers retrieved multiple

baggies containing what was later determined to be methamphetamine.

Beneath the container, there was a receipt from AutoZone dated April 25, 2016,

with Shoffner’s name. The officers additionally found a black digital scale in

the bedroom. Inside Johnson’s purse, the officers found a small baggie

containing a white substance, which later was determined to be heroin. Also

inside Johnson’s purse, there were three notebooks which had “names, dates[,]

and dollar amounts.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 114). According to the officers, the

notebook appeared to be a “drug debt ledger.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 115). When

confronted with the apparent heroin in her purse, Johnson admitted that the

heroin was for personal use, and she proceeded to show the officers her “kit”

which was in the bathroom. (Tr. Vol. II, p. 107). The kit had two hypodermic

needles, a metal spoon with burnt residue, and a lighter.

[7] After searching Johnson’s apartment, the officers went outside to talk with

Shoffner who was still busy working on the truck stereo. A K-9 officer that was

outside alerted the other officers to the presence of narcotics in Shoffner’s Ford

truck. After obtaining a warrant, the officers searched Shoffner’s truck. Inside

a tool box that was in the bed of the truck, the officers found a couple of new

syringes, a digital scale, several ziplocked bags containing drugs, and a “one

hitter box” for smoking marijuana. (Tr. Vol. II p. 224).

[8] On April 28, 2017, the State filed an Information, charging Shoffner with Count

I, dealing in methamphetamine of 10 grams or more, a Level 2 felony; Count

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1622 | February 8, 2019 Page 4 of 8



II, possession of methamphetamine of 28 grams or more, a Level 3 felony; and

Count III, unlawful possession of a syringe, a Level 6 felony. On January 11,

2018, the State added another Count, conspiracy to commit dealing in

methamphetamine of at least 10 grams, a Level 2 felony.

[9] A two-day jury trial was held on March 9 through March 10, 2018. Johnson

testified that although she was the only person listed on the lease to her

apartment, Shoffner lived with her in April 2017. Johnson testified that at the

time, she and Shoffner were unemployed, but Shoffner settled all the house

bills. Johnson testified that Shoffner would buy and sell “meth and heroin” to

make money. (Tr. Vol. II, p. 142). Johnson added that Shoffner would

package the drugs in small “zip baggies” and from time to time they would

make courtesy deliveries. (Tr. Vol. II, p. 143). Johnson additionally testified

that some drug sales would occur inside her apartment. To keep track of the

drug sales, Johnson stated that they maintained several ledgers “because there

was a lot of people who owed a lot of money and there was no way to

remember all of that.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 144).

[10] At the close of the evidence, the jury found Shoffner guilty of Count V,

conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine of at least 10 grams, a

Level 2 felony, but returned a hung verdict on the remaining charges. The State

later dismissed the other charges. On June 4, 2018, the trial court sentenced

Shoffner to twenty years, with thirteen years to be served in the Department of

Correction (DOC), three years in community corrections, and four years

suspended to supervised probation.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1622 | February 8, 2019 Page 5 of 8



[11] Shoffner now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

[12] Shoffner contends that his twenty-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the

nature of the offense and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) empowers

us to independently review and revise sentences authorized by statute if, after

due consideration, we find the trial court’s decision inappropriate in light of the

nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Reid v. State, 876 N.E.2d

1114, 1116 (Ind. 2007). The “nature of offense” compares the defendant’s

actions with the required showing to sustain a conviction under the charged

offense, while the “character of the offender” permits a broader consideration of

the defendant’s character. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008);

Douglas v. State, 878 N.E.2d 873, 881 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). An appellant bears

the burden of showing that both prongs of the inquiry favor a revision of his

sentence. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Whether we

regard a sentence as appropriate at the end of the day turns on our sense of the

culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to

others, and a myriad of other considerations that come to light in a given case.

Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224. Our court focuses on “the length of the aggregate

sentence and how it is to be served.” Id.

[13] The advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an

appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Abbott v. State, 961 N.E.2d 1016,

1019 (Ind. 2012). The sentencing range for a Level 2 felony is ten to thirty

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1622 | February 8, 2019 Page 6 of 8



years, with an advisory sentence of seventeen and one-half years. I.C. § 35-50

2-4.5. Shoffner was sentenced to twenty years in the DOC.

[14] The nature of the offense is found in the details and circumstances of the

commission of the offense and the defendant’s participation. Croy v. State, 953

N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). The evidence at trial was that Shoffner

and Johnson were involved in a well-established drug dealing operation.

During the search, the officers located a three-volume drug ledger, multiple

digital scales, several ziplocked bags of drugs—both in Johnson’s apartment

and Shoffner’s Ford truck.

[15] With respect to Shoffner’s character, at the time of his sentencing, Shoffner was

only thirty-two years old, and he had already accumulated an extensive

criminal history. Starting in 2005, Shoffner was convicted of theft. In 2010, he

was convicted for possessing marijuana. The following year, Shoffner was

convicted of criminal mischief, and a no-contact order was issued. In 2012, he

was convicted for interference with reporting a crime, and a second no-contact

order was issued against him. Shoffner has had three petitions to revoke his

probation filed against him, with one having been revoked. While released on

bond in this case, Shoffner committed more crimes in Tippecanoe County for

possession of methamphetamine, criminal confinement, and domestic battery.

Also, in Fountain County, he was facing charges of dealing in

methamphetamine, conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine, and

driving while suspended with a prior conviction.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1622 | February 8, 2019 Page 7 of 8



[16] Shoffner also has a significant history of drug abuse despite two prior court

orders for drug counseling. In the presentencing report, Shoffner reported that

he first began using drugs at age eighteen and his last use was in December

2017. Shoffner confessed that on a daily basis, he used marijuana,

methamphetamine, and Adderall, and on occasion, he used synthetic

marijuana, cocaine, mushroom, and heroin.

[17] Shoffner makes a last unavailing argument by stating that his “sentence is in

excess of the advisory term.” (Appellant Br. p. 16). While Shoffner’s twenty

year sentence exceeds the advisory sentence, Shoffner also received a significant

benefit in alternative placements. The trial court ordered Shoffner to serve

thirteen years in the DOC, and the remaining years were to be served through

community corrections and probation. See Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023,

1025 (Ind. 2010) (holding that we “may consider all aspects of the penal

consequences imposed by the trial judge in sentencing the defendant,”

including the fact a portion of the sentence is suspended to probation or

otherwise crafted using a variety of sentencing tools available to the trial court).

[18] Under the circumstances, Shoffner has not convinced us that his twenty-year

sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense or his character.

Accordingly, we decline to disturb the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Based on the above, we conclude that Shoffner’s sentence is not inappropriate

in light of the nature of the offense and his character.



Affirmed