Joseph L. Haskett v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: PATRICIA CARESS McMATH Indianapolis, Indiana GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana J.T. WHITEHEAD Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana FILED Nov 12 2010, 9:40 am IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA JOSEPH L. HASKETT, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 52A02-1004-CR-505 APPEAL FROM THE MIAMI SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Robert A. Spahr, Judge Cause No. 52C01-0911-FA-58 November 12, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY, Judge CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court Joseph Haskett appeals his sentence for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.1 We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On July 8, 2009, Haskett sold methamphetamine to a confidential informant. He was arrested and charged with Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony possession of methamphetamine,2 and being an Habitual Substance Offender.3 Haskett entered a plea of guilty to Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, and the State dropped the other charges against him. The trial court held a sentencing hearing and found the following aggravators: (1) the Defendant has an extensive prior criminal record; (2) the Defendant is in need of correctional or rehabilitative treatment that can best be provided by his commitment to a penal facility; and (3) the Defendant was on parole during the time of the offenses and recently violated the conditions of his parole. (App. at 125.) The court found as a mitigator that the Defendant entered into a plea agreement and saved Miami County the expense of a jury trial. (Id.) Haskett received a twelve-year sentence, with three years suspended, for a total time incarcerated of nine years. DISCUSSION AND DECISION We may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Williams v. State, 891 N.E. 2d 621, 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)). We consider not only the aggravators and mitigators found 1 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1(a). 3 Ind. Code § 35-50-2-10(b). 2 2 by the trial court, but also any other factors appearing in the record. Roney v. State, 872 N.E.2d 192, 206 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting point to determine the appropriateness of a sentence. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh g 878 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). The advisory sentence for a Class B felony is ten years, with a range of six to twenty years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5. One factor we consider when determining the appropriateness of a deviation from the advisory sentence is whether there is anything more or less egregious about the offense committed by the defendant that makes it different from the typical offense accounted for by the legislature when it set the advisory sentence. Rich v. State, 890 N.E.2d 44, 54 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. Haskett argues his crime is no different from typical Class B felony drug dealing, but he offers no explanation or authority to support that argument. When considering the character of the offender, one relevant fact is the defendant s criminal history. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The significance of a criminal history in assessing a defendant s character varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current offense. Id. Haskett has six prior convictions, some of which are drug related, and numerous parole and probation violations. In addition, Haskett was on parole when he committed this offense, which reflects poorly on his character. See Rich, 890 N.E.2d at 54 (committing offenses while on 3 probation is a substantial consideration in our assessment of his character ), trans. denied. Haskett cites Davis v. State, 851 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied, in support of his argument that his sentence should be reduced. Davis is distinguishable. Davis was given the maximum sentence for Class C felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated,4 and we reduced her sentence by four years. She had only one prior conviction and had made significant efforts to improve herself, including attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and maintaining steady employment. Haskett, by contrast, has multiple prior convictions and arrests, and was released from jail just sixteen days before he committed the instant offense. At his sentencing hearing, Haskett presented witnesses who portrayed him as a good father who attended church, but his criminal history and actions in the instant offense support a determination his sentence is appropriate. Haskett s twelve-year sentence for a Class B felony is closer to the ten-year advisory sentence than the twenty-year maximum sentence. Even if his crime was a typical drug deal, Haskett s character justifies a sentence at least two years above the advisory. Thus, we cannot find Haskett s sentence inappropriate.5 Affirmed. ROBB, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur. 4 Ind. Code § 9-30-5-4. Haskett also requests that we allow him to serve his sentence at the Lake County Community Corrections Offender Re-Entry Program, as it would better accommodate his addiction problems. The State notes the Department of Correction has a similar program. We decline to change the location of Haskett s incarceration. 5 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.