MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 13 2018, 9:05 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Paul J. Podlejski Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Chandra K. Hein Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Brycin E. Brooks, April 13, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 48A05-1707-CR-1523 v. Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable David A. Happe, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 48C04-1510-F2-1710
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1707-CR-1523 | April 13, 2018 Page 1 of 8 Statement of the Case [1] Brycin E. Brooks (“Brooks”) appeals his sentence, which the trial court
imposed following his plea of guilty to Level 2 felony kidnapping. 1 On appeal,
he argues that his sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense
and his character. Because we do not find Brooks’ sentence to be inappropriate,
we affirm the trial court’s decision.
[2] We affirm.
Issue Whether Brooks’ sentence was inappropriate.
Facts [3] Around 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. on the morning of October 12, 2015, Thirea Brown
(“Brown”) was awoken by a “loud noise” at her front door. (Tr. Vol. 6 at 188).
She telephoned her boyfriend, Dayquan Swain (“Swain”), and told him that it
sounded like someone was trying to kick in the front door. Within two
minutes, Brooks and his younger brother, Andrius Brooks (“Andrius”), broke
into Brown’s apartment wearing all black clothes and “Scream” masks. (Tr.
Vol. 6 at 193). The brothers found Brown where she was hiding in her
bedroom and pointed their guns at her while “yelling and asking [] where the
stuff was.” (Tr. Vol. 6 at 194). Brown told Brooks and Andrius that she did not
1 IND. CODE § 35-42-3-2.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1707-CR-1523 | April 13, 2018 Page 2 of 8 have anything, and one of the brothers started to ransack her apartment as the
other held her at gunpoint. The brother holding her at gunpoint kept asking
where “the stuff was” and clarified that he was looking for drugs and money.
(Tr. Vol. 6 at 200). When Brown told him that she did not have any drugs or
money, he did not believe her, and both brothers “kept telling [her] they [were]
gonna kill [her].” (Tr. Vol. 6 at 201). At one point, one of the two brothers hit
Brown on the left side of her face with his gun.
[4] After ransacking Brown’s apartment, one of the brothers called Swain from
Brown’s phone and demanded $20,000. Brooks and Andrius then forced
Brown to leave her apartment, get into their car, and lie down on the floor of
the car. They then drove to another location and forced Brown to get into the
trunk of the car. Throughout this time, the brothers continued to talk to Swain
and demand that he give them money. They told Swain that they would kill
Brown if he did not pay them. Brown could hear these conversations with
Swain from the trunk of the car.
[5] Over the next twelve hours, Brooks and Andrius kept Brown locked in the
trunk without feeding her or letting her out to use the restroom. During this
time, their friend, Harold Jones (“Jones”), discovered that they had a woman
captive when he heard her voice coming from the trunk. Also during this time,
Brooks and Andrius continued to telephone Swain and tell him that they would
kill Brown if he did not produce the money they had demanded. Eventually,
however, Brooks and Andrius released Brown in a rural area of town, and
police officers were able to pick her up.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1707-CR-1523 | April 13, 2018 Page 3 of 8 [6] On October 15, 2015, the State charged Brooks with Level 2 felony kidnapping,
Level 2 felony burglary, Level 2 felony criminal confinement, and Level 3
felony attempted armed robbery. The State later amended the charging
information to add counts of Level 3 felony confinement while armed with a
deadly weapon and using a firearm in the commission of kidnapping and/or
criminal confinement.
[7] While Brooks was in jail, he wrote a letter to Jones, who had been charged with
aiding them in kidnapping Brown. In the letter, Brooks wrote:
[Jones,] is you gonna change the statement or what? You should have never said that shit anyway. I never expected that from you. That’s gonna be a bad look going to the joint, a rat. You said more than the victim. That’s crazy bro. Just let me know if you’re gonna do it or not. If you are gonna do it, now [sic].
(Tr. Vol. 6 at 74).
[8] On January 10, 2017, the trial court conducted a joint jury trial of Brooks and
Andrius as co-defendants. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury was unable to
reach a verdict, and the court declared a mistrial. Subsequently, the co-
defendants appeared before the same trial court judge for another jury trial on
April 24, 2017. Prior to jury selection that day, they both pled guilty to one
Count of Level 2 felony kidnapping. In exchange for their guilty pleas, the
State dismissed the remaining charges against them.
[9] At Brooks’ and Andrius’ joint sentencing hearing, the State introduced a
transcript of the ransom phone calls the brothers had made to Swain as
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1707-CR-1523 | April 13, 2018 Page 4 of 8 evidence. The State also introduced transcripts of the testimonies of several,
but not all, of the witnesses from the January 10 jury trial as State’s Exhibits 2-
5. These exhibits provided the above facts regarding Brooks’ offense. After the
State offered the witness transcripts as exhibits, the State said: “My intent is to
also ask that the court take judicial notice of the [January 10] trial in this case
that previously ended in a mistrial.” (Tr. Vol. 6 at 242). The trial court asked
Brooks whether there was “any reason not to do so,” and Brooks responded,
“No objection.” (Tr. Vol. 6 at 242). The trial court then said that it would take
judicial notice “of the entire evidentiary record that’s been developed in the
case, including the exhibits . . . [and] the P.S.I.” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 244).
[10] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found as aggravating factors
that: (1) Brooks had a significant criminal history; (2) the amount of time that
Brooks held Brown was far beyond that necessary to constitute the elements of
the offense; and (3) the offense was a complex multi-person conspiracy. The
trial court identified as mitigating factors that: (1) Brooks had pled guilty and
accepted responsibility, although it noted that he had not done so until the
morning of the second trial; and (2) Brooks had demonstrated remorse. Based
on these factors, the trial court sentenced Brooks to twenty-eight (28) years
executed in the Department of Correction. Brooks now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1707-CR-1523 | April 13, 2018 Page 5 of 8 Decision [11] On appeal, Brooks argues that his sentence was inappropriate.2 Under Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B), we may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 13 2018, 9:05 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Paul J. Podlejski Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Chandra K. Hein Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Brycin E. Brooks, April 13, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 48A05-1707-CR-1523 v. Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable David A. Happe, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 48C04-1510-F2-1710
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1707-CR-1523 | April 13, 2018 Page 1 of 8 Statement of the Case [1] Brycin E. Brooks (“Brooks”) appeals his sentence, which the trial court
imposed following his plea of guilty to Level 2 felony kidnapping. 1 On appeal,
he argues that his sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense
and his character. Because we do not find Brooks’ sentence to be inappropriate,
we affirm the trial court’s decision.
[2] We affirm.
Issue Whether Brooks’ sentence was inappropriate.
Facts [3] Around 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. on the morning of October 12, 2015, Thirea Brown
(“Brown”) was awoken by a “loud noise” at her front door. (Tr. Vol. 6 at 188).
She telephoned her boyfriend, Dayquan Swain (“Swain”), and told him that it
sounded like someone was trying to kick in the front door. Within two
minutes, Brooks and his younger brother, Andrius Brooks (“Andrius”), broke
into Brown’s apartment wearing all black clothes and “Scream” masks. (Tr.
Vol. 6 at 193). The brothers found Brown where she was hiding in her
bedroom and pointed their guns at her while “yelling and asking [] where the
stuff was.” (Tr. Vol. 6 at 194). Brown told Brooks and Andrius that she did not
1 IND. CODE § 35-42-3-2.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1707-CR-1523 | April 13, 2018 Page 2 of 8 have anything, and one of the brothers started to ransack her apartment as the
other held her at gunpoint. The brother holding her at gunpoint kept asking
where “the stuff was” and clarified that he was looking for drugs and money.
(Tr. Vol. 6 at 200). When Brown told him that she did not have any drugs or
money, he did not believe her, and both brothers “kept telling [her] they [were]
gonna kill [her].” (Tr. Vol. 6 at 201). At one point, one of the two brothers hit
Brown on the left side of her face with his gun.
[4] After ransacking Brown’s apartment, one of the brothers called Swain from
Brown’s phone and demanded $20,000. Brooks and Andrius then forced
Brown to leave her apartment, get into their car, and lie down on the floor of
the car. They then drove to another location and forced Brown to get into the
trunk of the car. Throughout this time, the brothers continued to talk to Swain
and demand that he give them money. They told Swain that they would kill
Brown if he did not pay them. Brown could hear these conversations with
Swain from the trunk of the car.
[5] Over the next twelve hours, Brooks and Andrius kept Brown locked in the
trunk without feeding her or letting her out to use the restroom. During this
time, their friend, Harold Jones (“Jones”), discovered that they had a woman
captive when he heard her voice coming from the trunk. Also during this time,
Brooks and Andrius continued to telephone Swain and tell him that they would
kill Brown if he did not produce the money they had demanded. Eventually,
however, Brooks and Andrius released Brown in a rural area of town, and
police officers were able to pick her up.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1707-CR-1523 | April 13, 2018 Page 3 of 8 [6] On October 15, 2015, the State charged Brooks with Level 2 felony kidnapping,
Level 2 felony burglary, Level 2 felony criminal confinement, and Level 3
felony attempted armed robbery. The State later amended the charging
information to add counts of Level 3 felony confinement while armed with a
deadly weapon and using a firearm in the commission of kidnapping and/or
criminal confinement.
[7] While Brooks was in jail, he wrote a letter to Jones, who had been charged with
aiding them in kidnapping Brown. In the letter, Brooks wrote:
[Jones,] is you gonna change the statement or what? You should have never said that shit anyway. I never expected that from you. That’s gonna be a bad look going to the joint, a rat. You said more than the victim. That’s crazy bro. Just let me know if you’re gonna do it or not. If you are gonna do it, now [sic].
(Tr. Vol. 6 at 74).
[8] On January 10, 2017, the trial court conducted a joint jury trial of Brooks and
Andrius as co-defendants. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury was unable to
reach a verdict, and the court declared a mistrial. Subsequently, the co-
defendants appeared before the same trial court judge for another jury trial on
April 24, 2017. Prior to jury selection that day, they both pled guilty to one
Count of Level 2 felony kidnapping. In exchange for their guilty pleas, the
State dismissed the remaining charges against them.
[9] At Brooks’ and Andrius’ joint sentencing hearing, the State introduced a
transcript of the ransom phone calls the brothers had made to Swain as
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1707-CR-1523 | April 13, 2018 Page 4 of 8 evidence. The State also introduced transcripts of the testimonies of several,
but not all, of the witnesses from the January 10 jury trial as State’s Exhibits 2-
5. These exhibits provided the above facts regarding Brooks’ offense. After the
State offered the witness transcripts as exhibits, the State said: “My intent is to
also ask that the court take judicial notice of the [January 10] trial in this case
that previously ended in a mistrial.” (Tr. Vol. 6 at 242). The trial court asked
Brooks whether there was “any reason not to do so,” and Brooks responded,
“No objection.” (Tr. Vol. 6 at 242). The trial court then said that it would take
judicial notice “of the entire evidentiary record that’s been developed in the
case, including the exhibits . . . [and] the P.S.I.” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 244).
[10] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found as aggravating factors
that: (1) Brooks had a significant criminal history; (2) the amount of time that
Brooks held Brown was far beyond that necessary to constitute the elements of
the offense; and (3) the offense was a complex multi-person conspiracy. The
trial court identified as mitigating factors that: (1) Brooks had pled guilty and
accepted responsibility, although it noted that he had not done so until the
morning of the second trial; and (2) Brooks had demonstrated remorse. Based
on these factors, the trial court sentenced Brooks to twenty-eight (28) years
executed in the Department of Correction. Brooks now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1707-CR-1523 | April 13, 2018 Page 5 of 8 Decision [11] On appeal, Brooks argues that his sentence was inappropriate.2 Under Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B), we may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of
the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. The defendant has
the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State,
848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). The principal role of a Rule 7(B) review is
“to attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial
courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not
to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895
N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately
turns on “the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage
done to others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.”
Id. at 1224.
[12] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge that
the advisory sentence “is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an
appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081.
The sentencing range for a Level 2 felony is ten (10) to thirty (30) years with an
advisory sentence of seventeen and one-half (17½) years. IND. CODE § 35-50-2-
4.5. As Brooks was sentenced to twenty-eight (28) years, his sentence was two
years less than the maximum sentence he could have received. Brooks argues
2 Brooks’ co-defendant, Andrius, also appealed his sentence. Brooks v. State, 48A02-1797-CR-1527 (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2018).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1707-CR-1523 | April 13, 2018 Page 6 of 8 that this sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his
character. We disagree.
[13] The nature of Brooks’ offense was particularly heinous. He, along with his
brother, broke into Browns’ apartment wearing all black and a “Scream” mask
and held Brown at gunpoint. (Tr. Vol. 6 at 193). Brooks and Andrius then
ransacked Brown’s apartment and forced her into their car while they called her
boyfriend and threatened to kill her if he did not produce $20,000. Over the
next twelve hours, the two brothers kept Brown locked in their dark car trunk
and did not let her out of the trunk to eat or use the restroom. During this time,
they again threatened to kill her. Then, after Brooks was arrested for
kidnapping Brown, he wrote a letter to Jones in which he told Jones to change
his statement to police and said that Jones would be treated like a “rat” in jail
for complying with the investigation into Brooks’ offenses. (Tr. Vol. 6 at 74).
[14] As for Brooks’ character, his PSI revealed that he has previous adult
convictions for nine misdemeanor offenses and one felony, Level 6 felony
battery with moderate bodily injury. In addition, he was adjudicated a
delinquent as a juvenile for offenses that would have been considered Class D
felony auto theft, Class D felony sexual battery, Class D felony intimidation,
and Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury if committed by an
adult. Notably, Brooks has also violated his probation and placement on in-
home detention in multiple causes. This criminal history demonstrates that
Brooks has little respect for the law.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1707-CR-1523 | April 13, 2018 Page 7 of 8 [15] Based on this evidence of the nature of Brooks’ offense and his character, we
conclude that his sentence was not inappropriate.3
[16] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Bailey, J., concur.
3 Brooks also argues that the trial court committed fundamental error when it took judicial notice of the entire record of the January 10 jury trial that ended in a mistrial. However, Brooks does not challenge State’s Exhibits 2-5. Because those exhibits provided the evidence necessary to resolve Brooks’ argument on appeal, we need not address his judicial notice argument.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1707-CR-1523 | April 13, 2018 Page 8 of 8