Opinion
24A-CR-759
08-19-2024
Rease Pence, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Marielena Duerring Duerring Law Offices South Bend, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Tyler Banks Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 St. Joseph Superior Court The Honorable Jeffrey L. Sanford, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 71D03-2210-MR-17
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Marielena Duerring
Duerring Law Offices
South Bend, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Indiana Attorney General
Tyler Banks Deputy
Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BAILEY, JUDGE.
Case Summary
[¶1] Rease Pence appeals his sentence for two counts of Murder, a felony. Pence raises a single issue, that is, whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and the character of the offender. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] During the late evening of June 17, 2022, seventeen-year-old Pence asked Jamie Binns if she would pick him up at a specific residence and give him a ride to Laurel Woods Apartments in South Bend. When Binns arrived to pick up Pence, her friend Samantha Lawson was in the front passenger's seat. Pence left the residence carrying a gun and accompanied by his friend, Javon Jankoviak. Pence and Jankoviak got into the back seat, and the group traveled ten or fifteen minutes to Laurel Woods Apartments.
[¶3] As soon as Binns stopped her vehicle, and while her foot was still on the brake, Pence leaned forward from the back seat and fired multiple shots into the back of Binns's head and Lawson's head. Both women died instantly. Pence ran to a parked truck, to which he had the keys. On the way back home, Pence apologized to Jankoviak for involving him in the events.
[¶4] On October 4, 2022, the State charged Pence with two counts of murder. The State also alleged that a sentencing enhancement for the use of a firearm was appropriate. A jury found Pence guilty of two counts of murder; he waived his right to have a jury determination made upon the enhancement allegation; and the trial court found that the State had met its burden of proof on the enhancement.
[¶5] On March 1, 2024, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. Dr. Michael Jenuwine testified that he had been asked to evaluate Pence for whether he "showed evidence of irretrievable depravity in terms of whether [he] could get life without parole." (Tr. Vol. III, pg. 164.) In the opinion of Dr. Jenuwine, Pence was a "good candidate for rehabilitation." (Id. at 165.) The State requested consecutive sentences of fifty-five years each and a twenty-year enhancement, i.e., 130 years, while Pence asked that the trial court impose a sentence of no greater than ninety years before the enhancement. The trial court found the nature and circumstances of the crimes to be aggravating, pointing out that the murders were "premeditated and callous." (Id. at 193.) The trial court found Pence's age to be mitigating. Pence received consecutive sentences of fifty-five years each, enhanced by twelve and one-half years, providing for an aggregate sentence of 122 and one-half years. Pence appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[¶6] A person who commits murder shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between forty-five and sixty-five years, with the advisory sentence being fifty-five years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-3. For each offense, Pence received an advisory sentence. Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-11(g) provides for an enhancement of an additional fixed term of five to twenty years if the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly or intentionally used a firearm in the commission of the offense. For his use of a firearm in the commission of those crimes, Pence received an enhancement of twelve and one-half years. Pointing to his youthful age at the time of the crimes - seventeen and one-half years - Pence argues that his aggregate sentence is inappropriate and requests that this Court "vacate the sentence imposed by the trial court and order the sentences for Counts 1 and 2 be run concurrently for a total sentence of sixtyseven and one-half years." Appellant's Brief at 13.
[¶7] Pursuant to Appellate Rule 7(B), we "may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision," we find "that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender." Because sentencing is principally a discretionary function, we reserve our authority for "exceptional cases." Livingston v. State, 113 N.E.3d 611, 613 (Ind. 2018). As our Supreme Court has explained, deference to the trial court "should prevail 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). We are guided in appellate review to 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. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Ultimately, the defendant bears the burden of persuading us that the sentence is inappropriate. Harris v. State, 16 N.E.3d 91, 99 (Ind. 2021).
[¶8] Pence committed multiple and senseless murders, execution-style. He left at least six children, one of whom was one month old, without their mothers. For this conduct, he received consecutive advisory sentences. His sentence was enhanced by twelve and one-half years for the use of a firearm, which is seven and one-half years lower than the maximum enhancement term. The heinous nature of the offenses does not militate toward a lesser sentence. See e.g., Pittman v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1246, 1259 (Ind. 2008) (recognizing that "consecutive sentences reflect the significance of multiple victims.") Indeed, "when the perpetrator commits the same offense against two victims, enhanced and consecutive sentences seem necessary to vindicate the fact that there were separate harms and separate acts against more than one person." Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852, 857 (Ind. 2003).
The testimony at the sentencing hearing indicates that Samantha Lawson had five children and that Jamie Binns was also a mother.
[¶9] An offender's character is shown by his "life and conduct." Adams v. State, 120 N.E.3d 1058, 1065 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019). Pence was adjudicated a delinquent for having committed what would be battery, if committed by an adult. By the time of his sentencing in this case, Pence was facing a murder charge in the State of Michigan, related to a killing that took place one month before the killings of Binns and Lawson. He was also facing a weapons charge. What is known of Pence's character does not suggest that additional leniency should be afforded to him.
Conclusion
[¶10] Pence has not shown that his sentence is inappropriate.
[¶11] Affirmed.
Altice, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.