Taron Raphael Momon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED 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. Aug 19 2010, 8:36 am CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: JOHN ANDREW GOODRIDGE Evansville, Indiana GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana ELLEN H. MEILAENDER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA TARON RAPHAEL MOMON, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 82A01-0912-CR-598 APPEAL FROM THE VANDERBURGH CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Carl A. Heldt, Judge The Honorable Kelli E. Fink, Magistrate Cause No. 82C01-0904-FB-409 August 19, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION MATHIAS, Judge Taron Raphael Momon ( Momon ) pleaded guilty to Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft. The trial court sentenced Momon to an aggregate term of ten years with two years suspended to probation. Momon appeals and argues that his ten-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. We affirm. Facts and Procedural History On May 11, 2007, Momon broke and entered the dwelling of Amanda Longway with the intent to commit theft therein by reaching through an open window. Momon then knowingly exerted unauthorized control over the victim s Xbox 360 game system with the intent to deprive her of it. On February 18, 2009, the State alleged that Momon, at the age of sixteen, had committed acts that would be crimes if committed by an adult. On April 17, 2009, Momon was waived to adult court. On April 21, 2009, the State charged Momon with Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft. On October 19, 2009, the day of his jury trial, Momon agreed to plead guilty as charged without a sentence recommendation but with the State s agreement that any sentence Momon received in a separate robbery case would run concurrently to the sentence given in the instant case. The trial court accepted the guilty plea and dismissed the jury panel. On November 12, 2009, the trial court held a sentencing hearing at which Momon sought to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court rejected this request and proceeded with sentencing. After determining that the aggravators and mitigators balanced, the trial 2 court sentenced Momon to ten years with two years suspended to probation on the Class B felony burglary conviction and eighteen months for the Class D felony theft conviction, to be served concurrently. Momon now appeals. Discussion and Decision Momon argues that his ten-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which 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. In Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), our supreme court explained: It is on this basis alone that a criminal defendant may now challenge his or her sentence where the trial court has entered a sentencing statement that includes a reasonably detailed recitation of its reasons for imposing a particular sentence that is supported by the record, and the reasons are not improper as a matter of law, but has imposed a sentence with which the defendant takes issue. [A] defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review. Id. Initially, we note that Momon has waived his right to appellate review of the appropriateness of sentencing. Although a pre-sentence investigation report is ordered to be prepared and the report was actually prepared and used by the trial court in making its sentencing determination, Momon did not include a copy of the report in the record he transmitted for appeal. Tr. p. 21, Sentencing Tr. p. 21. Momon has the responsibility to present a sufficient record that supports his claim so that we may conduct an intelligent review of the issues. Titone v. State, 882 N.E.2d 219, 221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The pre3 sentence investigation report in an appeal in which he alleges that his sentence is inappropriate is certainly an invaluable part of the record for the review of the nature of the offenses committed and the character of the offender. Because Momon has failed to provide the pertinent portions of the record for review of this issue, he has waived this claim on appeal. Id. Waiver notwithstanding, Momon s ten-year sentence is appropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and the character of the offender. As to the nature of the offense, Momon would have us minimize the facts surrounding crimes by characterizing them as a grabbing, almost a casual borrowing, of an expensive gaming system through a window the victim should not have left open and unattended. While we find it difficult to review the nature of the offenses because the specific facts of the case are not related during any of the hearings, we note Momon s admissions to the elements of the crimes on the record and his trial counsel s statements during sentencing. Sentencing Tr. p. 22. We are also unimpressed by Momon s attempt to minimize the nature of his conduct and his inferential attempt to shift blame to the victim. Momon s character also supports his ten-year sentence. Although we do not have the pre-sentence investigation report, the State reviewed Momon s criminal history during the sentencing hearing. Momon has an extensive criminal history despite his young age. Momon committed the instant offenses in 2007 at the age of sixteen and had not yet turned nineteen at the time of sentencing. He has amassed a number of charges for actions that would have been crimes if committed by an adult, including theft, residential entry, escape, receiving stolen property, and criminal mischief. Apparently some of these 4 charges did not end in an adjudication as a delinquent but that is unclear from the record. However, in a 2008 case, Momon was charged with armed robbery and assisting a criminal and pleaded guilty to the charge of assisting a criminal. Also in 2008, Momon was convicted as an adult of Class D felony criminal recklessness. Momon s character clearly supports the ten-year sentence. The nature of the offense and the character of the offender support Momon s tenyear sentence. Affirmed. RILEY, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur. 5
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.
