The opinion
MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Jun 20 2018, 6:33 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
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
R. Patrick Magrath Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Madison, Indiana
J.T. Whitehead
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
David E. Proffitt, June 20, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
40A05-1505-CR-473
v. Appeal from the Jennings Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jon W. Webster,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
40C01-1212-FB-48
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A05-1505-CR-473 | June 20, 2018 Page 1 of 18
Statement of the Case
[1] David E. Proffitt appeals his convictions following a jury trial for three counts
of dealing in a narcotic drug, as Class B felonies. He presents four issues for
our review:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it
admitted into evidence his statements made during two
interrogations.
2. Whether application of the incredible dubiosity rule
establishes that there is insufficient evidence to support his
convictions.
3. Whether the trial court committed fundamental error
when it admitted allegedly prejudicial character evidence.
4. Whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature
of the offenses and his character.
[2] We affirm and remand with instructions.1
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In early 2012, Jennings County Sheriff’s Lieutenant Brian Talkington received a
phone call from a woman who claimed to be Proffitt’s sister-in-law. She told
Lieutenant Talkington that Proffitt was getting “a lot of pills” through his wife’s
1
We held oral argument in this case on June 4, 2018, at the Mitchell Opera House in Mitchell, Indiana on
the 200th anniversary of the first court hearing held in Lawrence County on June 4, 1818. We thank counsel
for their excellent advocacy, and we thank the Lawrence County Bar Association and the Lawrence County
Bicentennial Committee for inviting us to hold the oral argument as part of Lawrence County’s Bicentennial
celebration.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A05-1505-CR-473 | June 20, 2018 Page 2 of 18
health insurance with the Federal government. Tr. Vol. III at 377. Lieutenant
Talkington then contacted David White, a Special Agent with the Inspector
General for the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and
Agent White stated that he had also been contacted and informed that Proffitt
was “receiving high volumes of prescription narcotics which seemed beyond the
scope of medical necessity” for his personal use. Id. at 453. Agent White
verified that information by checking a database “that basically logs all
prescription narcotics, how they’re paid for, quantities people get, things like
that.” Id. at 454. Accordingly, Agent White began investigating Dr. Anthony
Mims, who had been prescribing the narcotics for Proffitt, and Lieutenant
Talkington initiated four controlled drug buys between confidential informants
and Proffitt.
[4] After the last controlled buy, Lieutenant Talkington concluded that it was time
to arrest Proffitt. Lieutenant Talkington was concerned for the safety of law
enforcement if they were to make the arrest at his home. Proffitt had previously
approached the local jail and offered to provide “pizzas to the inmates on a
commissary situation [sic].” Id. at 415. Accordingly, Lieutenant Talkington
arranged for Proffitt to come to the jail on the pretense of making arrangements
for the pizza sales. When Proffitt arrived at the jail on December 4, 2012,
Lieutenant Talkington, Agent White, and other law enforcement officers
introduced themselves, told Proffitt that they were not interested in pizza sales,
and read him his Miranda rights. Proffitt’s live-in girlfriend, Brandy Caudill,
had accompanied him inside the jail, and Proffitt’s son waited in the car.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A05-1505-CR-473 | June 20, 2018 Page 3 of 18
During the first interview, Proffitt denied that he sold pills, but he
acknowledged that he received approximately 1,000 oxycodone and
hydrocodone pills every three months. After Agent White interrogated Proffitt,
Lieutenant Talkington obtained a search warrant for Proffitt’s residence and a
storage unit and placed him under arrest.
[5] Approximately six days later, Proffitt notified jail personnel that he wanted to
talk to “federal agents” and to “cooperate with them[.]” Id. at 422.
Accordingly, Agent White again read Proffitt his Miranda rights and conducted
a second interrogation of Proffitt on December 10. Proffitt again denied that he
sold pills, but he told Agent White that Dr. Mims gave him the prescriptions in
exchange for gift cards and silver, that Dr. Mims did not examine Proffitt
during Proffitt’s visits, and that Proffitt would direct Dr. Mims on what
prescriptions to write.2
[6] The State charged Proffitt with four counts of dealing in a narcotic drug, as
Class B felonies; conspiracy to commit dealing in a narcotic drug, as a Class B
felony; and maintaining a common nuisance, a Class D felony. Prior to trial,
Proffitt filed a motion to suppress evidence alleging that both of his
interrogations were conducted under duress and in violation of his “state and
2
During his trial testimony, Agent White indicated that, “[a]fter Mr. Proffitt did not cooperate,” there had
been no further investigation of Dr. Mims; that Dr. Mims had not been charged with any crime, and that
Agent White had referred the case to a different agency. Id. at 470.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A05-1505-CR-473 | June 20, 2018 Page 4 of 18
federal protections against self-incrimination[.]” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at
107. The trial court denied that motion after a hearing.
[7] At his ensuing jury trial, the State presented as evidence the testimony of the
two confidential informants, Emma Kiefer and Jessica Johnson; the testimony
of Lieutenant Talkington; the testimony of Agent White; the audio recordings
from the four controlled buys; and the audio recordings from the two
interrogations. Proffitt presented as evidence his testimony and the testimony
of Caudill.
[8] At the conclusion of his trial in November 2014, the jury acquitted Proffitt of
one count of dealing in a narcotic drug, but found him guilty of the remaining
five counts. The trial court entered judgment of conviction accordingly, but,
“for the purposes of sentencing only,” the court “vacated” Proffitt’s convictions
for conspiracy to commit dealing in a narcotic drug and maintaining a common
nuisance. Appellant’s App. Vol. III at 111 (emphasis in original). And the
court sentenced Proffitt to an aggregate term of thirty-four years executed. This
appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
Issue One: Admission of Statements
[9] Proffitt first contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted
into evidence statements he made during his interrogations with law
enforcement. Proffitt initially challenged the admission of this evidence
through a motion to suppress but now appeals following a completed trial.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A05-1505-CR-473 | June 20, 2018 Page 5 of 18
Thus, the issue is appropriately framed as whether the trial court abused its
discretion by admitting the evidence at trial. Lanham v. State, 937 N.E.2d 419,
421-22 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). A trial court is afforded broad discretion in ruling
upon the admissibility of evidence, and we will reverse such a ruling only when
the defendant has shown an abuse of discretion. Id. at 422. An abuse of
discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the
facts and circumstances before the court. Id. We do not reweigh the evidence,
and we consider conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the trial
court’s ruling. Id.
[10] Proffitt asserts that the admission of his statements at trial violated Article 1,
Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution, which provides that no person, in any
criminal prosecution, shall be compelled to testify against himself. In
particular, he maintains that his statements to law enforcement were made
under duress and were, therefore, not voluntary. Where, as here, a defendant
challenges the voluntariness of a confession under the Indiana Constitution, the
State is required “to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
voluntarily waived his rights and that the confession was voluntarily given.”
Malloch v. State, 980 N.E.2d 887, 901 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “When evaluating a
claim that a statement was not given voluntarily, the trial court is to consider
the totality of the circumstances, including whether there is police coercion, the
length, location, and continuity of the interrogation, and the maturity,
education, physical condition, and mental health of the defendant.” Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A05-1505-CR-473 | June 20, 2018 Page 6 of 18
[11] Proffitt alleges that his statements during the first interrogation were not
voluntary because he was promised leniency when officers told him he could
help himself and because he “was told that he had to talk, and that it was a
federal crime to lie to law enforcement.” Appellant’s Br. at 18. We must
disagree. While a confession is inadmissible if it was obtained by promises of
mitigation or immunity, “vague and indefinite statements by the police that it
would be in a defendant’s best interest if he cooperated do not render a
subsequent confession inadmissible.” Clark v. State, 808 N.E.2d 1183, 1191
(Ind. 2004). “Further, ‘[s]tatements by police expressing a desire that a suspect
cooperate and explaining the crimes and penalties that are possible results are
not specific enough to constitute either promises or threats.’” Id. (quoting
Kahlenbeck v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1213, 1217 (Ind. 1999)). Here, while Lieutenant
Talkington and Agent White both told Proffitt during the interviews that he
could help himself, neither officer made any specific promises that Proffitt
would receive a reduction in his charges or sentence. And Agent White’s
statement that it is a federal crime to lie to a law enforcement officer was not
specific enough to constitute a threat. The statements by the officers were an
attempt to induce Proffitt to provide information, but they did not constitute
promises of benefits or threats that rendered Proffitt’s statements involuntary.
See id.
[12] Proffitt also alleges that his statements during the first interrogation were not
voluntary because he was worried about the well-being of his son, who was
sitting in the car outside of the jail. But both Lieutenant Talkington and Agent
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A05-1505-CR-473 | June 20, 2018 Page 7 of 18
White testified that Proffitt never mentioned that his son was sitting alone in the
car. And nothing in the record persuades us that Proffitt’s statements during
the first interview were involuntary. Officers read Proffitt his Miranda rights
and asked Proffitt if he understood his rights, which he indicated he did. And
Lieutenant Talkington did not observe any behavior during the ninety-minute
interview that made him believe that Proffitt was not mentally competent.
Rather, Lieutenant Talkington testified at the hearing on the motion to suppress
that Proffitt appeared “quite confident.” Tr. Vol. II at 40. And, even though
Proffitt started to sweat at one point, a nurse examined him and said he was
“fine.” Id. Similarly, Agent White testified at the suppression hearing that
Proffitt appeared very lucid at all times and that he was “very calm and
coherent.” Id. at 61.
[13] Further, even though Agent White continued to ask Proffitt about selling pills,
Proffitt maintained his innocence and stated that he never sold any of the pills
he had been prescribed. Indeed, Proffitt acknowledges on appeal that he “did
not make any statements during the December 4, 2012, interrogation that were
of significant inculpatory value.” Appellant’s Br. at 18. Proffitt’s statements
made during the first interview were not involuntary, and the trial court did not
abuse its discretion when it admitted those statements.
[14] Proffitt also asserts that his statements during the second interrogation were
involuntary because, prior to the second interrogation, he was “subjected to
abusive action” in the jail, including being choked, tazed, and placed in an
isolation cell. Id. at 19. He also contends that the statements were involuntary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A05-1505-CR-473 | June 20, 2018 Page 8 of 18
because he was “under substantial emotional and physical duress” due to the
“anguish of not knowing the fate of his mentally handicapped child” and due to
sickness as a result of withdrawal from narcotics. Id. at 20. Proffitt maintains
that, under these “extraordinary circumstances, no waiver or consent can be
considered voluntary” and the trial court should have excluded his statements
at trial. Id.
[15] But, again, nothing in the record convinces us that Proffitt’s statements during
the second interview were involuntary. Proffitt initiated the second interview.
And Proffitt was again advised of his rights and signed a waiver of rights form.
Further, the interview was not excessive in duration as it only lasted
approximately one hour. Additionally, Agent White testified during the
suppression hearing that Proffitt was “very coherent” and “[v]ery calm” during
the second interview. Tr. Vol. II at 63. Agent White also testified that Proffitt
did not seem to be in any physical distress and that he did not notice anything
to make him think that Proffitt was mentally or emotionally unable to answer
the questions. Further, Agent White testified that it never appeared as though
Proffitt was under the influence of any opiates or that he was experiencing any
withdrawal symptoms. Because Proffitt’s statements during the second
interrogation were not involuntary, the trial court did not abuse its discretion
when it admitted those statements at trial.
Issue Two: Sufficiency of the Evidence
[16] Proffitt also contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support
his convictions. Initially, we note that the trial court entered judgment of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A05-1505-CR-473 | June 20, 2018 Page 9 of 18
conviction on all five counts on which the jury entered guilty verdicts. And,
during the sentencing hearing, both parties agreed that “the conspiracy
conviction and the maintaining a common nuisance conviction at least for the
purposes of sentencing are to be vacated because they are part of the other
crimes.” Tr. Vol. VI at 1054-55. Subsequently the trial court in its sentencing
order vacated the two convictions “for purposes of sentencing only[.]”
Appellant’s App. Vol. III at 111.
[17] However, both the Chronological Case Summary and the abstract of judgment
indicate that the convictions for Counts V and VI were “merged.” Appellant’s
App. Vol. II at 18, Appellant’s App. Vol. III at 109. As such, it is apparent that
the trial court simply merged the convictions for purposes of sentencing but did
not vacate them. It is well settled that if a trial court enters judgment of
conviction on a jury’s guilty verdict, “then simply merging the offenses is
insufficient and vacation of the offense is required.” Kovats v. State, 982 N.E.2d
409, 414-15 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Here, because the trial court entered
judgment of conviction on all five of the jury’s guilty verdicts and attempted to
“merge” two of the convictions for purposes of sentencing, we remand with
instructions for the trial court to vacate Proffitt’s convictions for conspiracy to
commit dealing in a narcotic drug and maintaining a common nuisance.
Accordingly, we address only the sufficiency of the evidence to support his
convictions for three counts of dealing in a narcotic drug.
[18] For those convictions, Proffitt specifically contends that there was insufficient
evidence because his convictions were based only on the testimony of Kiefer,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A05-1505-CR-473 | June 20, 2018 Page 10 of 18
Johnson, and Lieutenant Talkington, and he claims that the testimony from
each of those witnesses was “incredibly dubious.” Under the incredible
dubiosity rule, “a court will impinge on the jury’s responsibility to judge the
credibility of witnesses only when it has confronted ‘inherently improbable’
testimony or coerced, equivocal, wholly uncorroborated testimony of
‘incredible dubiosity.’” Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 755 (Ind. 2015) (quoting
Tillman v. State, 642 N.E.2d 221, 223 (Ind. 1994)). For the incredible dubiosity
rule to apply, “the evidence presented must be so unbelievable, incredible, or
improbable that no reasonable person could ever reach a guilty verdict based
upon that evidence alone.” Wolf v. State, 76 N.E.3d 911, 916 (Ind. Ct. App.
2017). “Application of the incredible dubiosity rule is limited to cases with very
specific circumstances because we are extremely hesitant to invade the province
of the jury.” Smith v. State, 34 N.E.3d 1211, 1221 (Ind. 2015). For the
incredible dubiosity rule to apply, there must be: “1) a sole testifying witness; 2)
testimony that is inherently contradictory, equivocal, or the result of coercion,
and 3) a complete absence of circumstantial evidence.” Moore, 27 N.E.3d at
756.
[19] Here, Proffitt specifically contends that the testimony from Kiefer and Johnson
was incredibly dubious because of their drug addictions and because they were
coerced by the State’s threat of prosecution. And Proffitt contends that
Lieutenant Talkington’s testimony was incredibly dubious in light of false
statements he had given in his report and in a previous hearing. But the State
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A05-1505-CR-473 | June 20, 2018 Page 11 of 18
contends that “the invocation of the ‘incredible dubiosity’ rule fails for a
number of reasons.” Appellee’s Br. at 28. The State is correct.
[20] First, there was not a “sole testifying witness.” Moore, 27 N.E.3d at 756.
Rather, the State presented the testimony of Kiefer, Johnson, and Lieutenant
Talkington as evidence, and each witness’ testimony was consistent with the
testimony of the other witnesses. Further, there was not “a complete absence of
circumstantial evidence” as the State presented circumstantial evidence that
corroborated the witnesses’ testimony, including the audio recordings of the
controlled buys and the pills that the confidential informants returned to the
police officers after the buys. Id. As such, the incredible dubiosity rule does not
apply.3 Proffitt’s arguments on appeal merely seek to have this court reassess
the weight and credibility of the evidence, which we will not do. The State
presented sufficient evidence to support Proffitt’s convictions.
Issue Three: Character Evidence
[21] Proffitt also contends that the trial court committed fundamental error when it
permitted Caudill’s testimony regarding a houseguest who resided with Proffitt
and Caudill in 2011. Proffitt acknowledges that his own counsel elicited that
3
For the first time at oral argument, Proffitt asserted that the incredible dubiosity rule should apply because,
at least in regards to the last two controlled buys, Johnson was the only witness to the offense. However, the
incredible dubiosity rule still does not apply because the State presented as evidence the audio recordings of
the controlled buys and the pills Johnson purchased, which at least partially corroborated Johnson’s
testimony.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A05-1505-CR-473 | June 20, 2018 Page 12 of 18
testimony on direct examination during his case-in-chief, but he does not assert
a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
[22] As our Supreme Court has explained:
A claim that has been waived by a defendant’s failure to raise a
contemporaneous objection can be reviewed on appeal if the
reviewing court determines that a fundamental error occurred.
The fundamental error exception is extremely narrow, and
applies only when the error constitutes a blatant violation of
basic principles, the harm or potential for harm is substantial,
and the resulting error denies the defendant fundamental due
process. The error claimed must either make a fair trial
impossible or constitute clearly blatant violations of basic and
elementary principles of due process. This exception is available
only in egregious circumstances.
Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind. 2010) (quotation marks and citations
omitted). “To prove fundamental error,” the appellant must show “that the
trial court should have raised the issue sua sponte . . . .” Taylor v. State, 86
N.E.3d 157, 162 (Ind. 2017).
[23] Specifically, Proffitt maintains that Caudill’s testimony that Proffitt and the
houseguest had showered together, that the houseguest had requested a sexual
encounter with Proffitt and Caudill, and that the houseguest’s mother
threatened to call law enforcement to report that Proffitt had raped the
houseguest unduly prejudiced him in violation of Indiana Evidence Rule
404(b). Proffitt contends that the “overwhelming prejudicial effect of Caudill’s
testimony was to invite the jury to speculate as to Proffitt’s character.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A05-1505-CR-473 | June 20, 2018 Page 13 of 18
Appellant’s Br. at 26. He further asserts that “[s]uch a salacious innuendo
planted in the minds of a jury cannot be harmless and inevitably would have
directly or indirectly affected the jury’s view of the evidence and consideration
of the issues.” Id. at 27.
[24] But, as noted above, Proffitt’s own counsel elicited the challenged testimony
from Caudill. Accordingly, Proffitt has invited the error, if any. The invited
error doctrine forbids a party from taking advantage of an error that he
“commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of [his] own neglect or
misconduct.” Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 975 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Wright
v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005)). And “‘invited error is not
fundamental error’ and is not subject to appellate review[.]” Cole v. State, 28
N.E.3d 1126, 1136 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Kingery v. State, 659 N.E.2d
490, 494 (Ind. 1995)). Because any error in the court’s admission of Caudill’s
testimony was invited by Proffitt, his fundamental error claim fails.
Issue Four: Sentencing
[25] Finally, Proffitt contends that his sentence in inappropriate in light of the nature
of the offenses and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that
“[t]he 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 Indiana Supreme Court has recently explained that:
The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to
leaven the outliers . . . but not achieve a perceived “correct”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A05-1505-CR-473 | June 20, 2018 Page 14 of 18
result in each case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind.
2008). Defendant has the burden to persuade us that the
sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Anglemyer v.
State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind.), as amended (July 10, 2007),
decision clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).
Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original).
[26] Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate
sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court’s judgment “should
receive considerable deference.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. Whether we
regard a sentence as inappropriate 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 myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224.
The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather
whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265,
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).
[27] Proffitt was convicted of three counts of dealing in a narcotic drug, as Class B
felonies. The sentencing range for a Class B felony is six years to twenty years,
with an advisory sentence of ten years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5 (2018). Here,
the trial court identified as mitigating factors the fact that Proffitt had completed
many self-help programs while incarcerated and he had been gainfully
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A05-1505-CR-473 | June 20, 2018 Page 15 of 18
employed for most of his adult life. And the trial court identified the following
aggravating factors: Proffitt’s criminal history, which includes twenty-seven
felony charges and eighteen misdemeanor charges that resulted in two felony
convictions and four misdemeanor convictions; that Proffitt was stealing
taxpayer funds when he dealt drugs paid for by taxpayers; that Proffitt has no
high school diploma or GED; that Proffitt has had his probation revoked once;
that there have been several incidents of jail misconduct; that Proffitt’s children
were in his home during the drug transactions; and that Proffitt’s dealing
operation was an “ongoing and large scale operation.” Appellant’s App. Vol.
III at 112. Accordingly, the trial court sentenced Proffitt to an aggregate term
of thirty-four years with the Department of Correction.
[28] Proffitt maintains that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offenses because there was “no evidence that anyone was directly injured or
harmed by any conduct Proffitt is alleged to have engaged in.” Appellant’s Br.
at 30. He also asserts that there was no “evidence of violence, substantial
quantity or prolonged duration[.]” Id. But the evidence shows that Proffitt
obtained one thousand oxycodone and hydrocodone pills every three months
and that he would sell those narcotics to individuals within his community. As
such, he has contributed to the opioid epidemic. Additionally, Proffitt used his
wife’s government insurance to purchase the pills. And, as the trial court
found, Proffitt’s children were present in the home during the drug transactions.
We cannot say that Proffitt’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of
the offenses.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A05-1505-CR-473 | June 20, 2018 Page 16 of 18
[29] Proffitt also contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character
because he was a forty-five-year-old man with “serious medical issues.” Id. at
28. He also contends that he “had taken advantage of every option available to
improve his life” and that his “behavior and conduct while incarcerated
demonstrate a desire to return to a lawful lifestyle as a productive member of
society.” Id. But Proffitt has not demonstrated that his sentence is
inappropriate in light of his character. Proffitt has a criminal history that
includes two prior felony convictions and four prior misdemeanor convictions.
Additionally, he has had his probation revoked once and he has violated jail
rules on at least three occasions. Accordingly, we conclude that Proffitt’s
sentence is not inappropriate and we affirm his sentence.
Conclusion
[30] In sum, we hold as follows: the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it
admitted into evidence statements Proffitt made during two interrogations
because those statements were not involuntary; the incredible dubiosity rule
does not apply because there was more than one testifying witness and because
there was not a complete lack of corroborating evidence; the trial court did not
commit fundamental error when it admitted Caudill’s testimony because
Proffitt invited any error; and Proffitt’s sentence is not inappropriate in light of
the nature of the offenses and his character. But we remand with instructions
for the trial court to vacate Proffitt’s convictions for conspiracy to commit
dealing in a narcotic drug and maintaining a common nuisance.
[31] Affirmed and remanded with instructions.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A05-1505-CR-473 | June 20, 2018 Page 17 of 18
May, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A05-1505-CR-473 | June 20, 2018 Page 18 of 18