Preview:

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: STACY R. ULIANA Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
Oct 13 2009, 10:23 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana MICHAEL GENE WORDEN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JOSEPH B. WILLIAMS, Appellant/Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee/Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 92A05-0903-CR-119

APPEAL FROM THE WHITLEY CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable James R. Heuer, Judge Cause No.92C01-0805-FA-44

October 13, 2009 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BRADFORD, Judge

Appellant/Defendant Joseph Williams appeals following his conviction for Class B felony Dealing in Cocaine.1 On appeal, Williams contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence at trial, that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering that he pay $260 in restitution to the Whitley County Drug Task Force ("WCDTF"), and that his eighteen-year executed sentence is inappropriate. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In May of 2004, Skyler Roff was serving a sentence in the Whitley County Work Release facility for Class D felony Non-Support. At some point, Roff informed Columbia City Police Detective Robert Stephenson that he could arrange a cocaine purchase from Williams. Roff, who had recently requested modification of his sentence because he had completed his GED, hoped that he could receive a "more lenient decision" if he "worked with" the State. Tr. p. 55. Detective Stephenson did not make any promises to Roff regarding sentence modification, but told Roff that the prosecutor would be made aware that Roff had cooperated with the authorities. On May 9, 2008, Roff unsuccessfully attempted to contact Williams using a telephone number that had been provided to Roff by Williams. The next day, Roff successfully contacted Williams, and the two men arranged for Williams to sell Roff "two balls of cocaine"2 for $240 and an extra $20 for gas. Tr. p. 58. Williams and Roff agreed that they

1

Ind. Code

Download 10130906cjb.pdf

Indiana Law