Christian A. Hamrick v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 15, 2020
• Docket: 19A-CR-2261
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 15 2020, 7:22 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 Anthony C. Lawrence Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Josiah Swinney Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Christian A. Hamrick, April 15, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-2261 v. Appeal from the Henry Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Plaintiff. Kit C. Dean Crane, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 33C02-1806-F5-43

Altice, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2261 | April 15, 2020 Page 1 of 9 Case Summary [1] Christian A. Hamrick was convicted following a jury trial of Level 5 felony

escape and three misdemeanor offenses. He appeals his aggregate three-year

sentence with one year suspended to formal probation, asserting that his

sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History [3] On June 17, 2018, Officer Brandon Edstene of the New Castle Police

Department initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle, later determined to be operated

by nineteen-year-old Hamrick, after Officer Edstene observed two traffic

infractions. During the stop, Officer Edstene smelled marijuana and observed a

jar with what he believed to be marijuana on the back seat. After being asked to

exit the vehicle several times, Hamrick stepped out, was handcuffed, and was

arrested for possession of marijuana and operating a vehicle while never having

received a license. During the search of the vehicle, police found a second

container with 16.4 grams of marijuana. When officers approached Hamrick to

show it to him, Hamrick “took off running[.]” Transcript Vol. 2 at 199.

Hamrick did not comply with the officers’ multiple orders to stop, and after

chasing Hamrick about half a mile, through multiple alleys, backyards, and

between houses, police apprehended him near an open garage.

[4] On June 28, 2018, the State charged Hamrick with Count I, Level 5 felony

escape; Count II, Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance; Count III,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2261 | April 15, 2020 Page 2 of 9 Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement; Count IV, Class B

misdemeanor possession of marijuana; and Count V, Class C misdemeanor

operating a motor vehicle without ever receiving a license. A jury trial was held

on August 5, 2019.

[5] Following the State’s presentation of evidence, the trial court granted Hamrick’s

request for a directed verdict on Count II. During Hamrick’s testimony, he

admitted that he had marijuana in the vehicle and ran from police, explaining

that his reason for fleeing was that he felt scared and threatened by the officers.

The jury found Hamrick guilty of Counts I, III, IV, and V.

[6] At the August 29, 2019 sentencing hearing, Hamrick submitted four letters on

his behalf—one from a long-time coach, two from aunts, and one from a family

friend. Hamrick also presented the testimony of his mother, Martha Hamrick

(Martha), who stated that Hamrick was from a Christian-based family and that

his behavior was “out of character” for him and the family’s values. Transcript

Vol. 3 at 53. Martha said that Hamrick had been involved in athletics since fifth

grade, received awards, and participated in activities to help cover the cost of

playing on a travel basketball team. When Hamrick was in high school, it

became apparent to Martha that the absence of Hamrick’s father was negatively

affecting Hamrick. Wanting him to have a strong male influence, she sent him

to live in Elkhart with a family member, who was a teacher and a coach, but it

was a challenge to Hamrick to be away and he returned home. Martha also

explained that Hamrick’s grandmother, with whom he enjoyed a close

relationship, passed away, and he did not know how to deal with his emotions

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2261 | April 15, 2020 Page 3 of 9 and “began to go down the wrong path of life.” Id. at 51. She testified that

Hamrick’s time in jail had caused him to reflect on his choices, and she

believed, with a second chance, Hamrick would positively contribute to the

community. Martha asked the court to impose probation and home detention.

[7] The pastor from Hamrick’s church, Juanita Suggs, also testified on his behalf.

Suggs, who had known Hamrick his whole life and who had continued to

pastor Hamrick while he was in jail, testified that Hamrick had “hit a rough

spot” but that Suggs was working with Hamrick to “get him over some of these

humps” and point him in the right direction. Id. at 58.

[8] Hamrick made a statement in allocution, stating, “I send a sincere apology . . .

to Officer [] Edstene for my unlawful behavior.” Id. at 59. Hamrick

acknowledged making poor decisions and expressed a desire to get a job and

attend college upon being released. Hamrick asked the court to impose

probation or house arrest “due to this being [his] first conviction[.]” Id. at 59.

[9] The State requested the imposition of an advisory three-year aggregate term to

be served at the Indiana Department of Correction (the DOC). The State noted

that multiple crimes were committed during this incident and that Hamrick

violated the conditions of his bond resulting in its revocation. Defense counsel

argued that this was Hamrick’s first felony or misdemeanor conviction, that

Hamrick admitted during trial that he possessed marijuana and ran from police,

that there were a number of people who offered support and would help him

keep his life on track, and that Hamrick expressed remorse. Hamrick’s counsel

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2261 | April 15, 2020 Page 4 of 9 observed that Hamrick had spent three hundred and two days in jail and asked

the court to fashion a sentence on home detention and suspend any balance to

probation.

[10] Before imposing its sentence, the court noted its appreciation of Hamrick’s

apology to Officer Edstene, and it encouraged Hamrick to not let the incident

define him. Although the trial court declined to find any aggravating or

mitigating circumstances, it noted that Hamrick had several pending cases

involving marijuana and encouraged Hamrick “to get a handle on that issue” to

avoid returning to court, where he would face increased consequences. Id. at

66. The court sentenced Hamrick as follows: Count I, Level 5 felony escape,

1095 days (or three years) in the DOC with one year suspended to probation;

Count III, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, 364 days in the

Henry County Jail; Count IV, Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana,

60 days in the Henry County Jail; and Count V, Class C misdemeanor

operating a motor vehicle without having received a license, 20 days in the

Henry County Jail. The court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently.

Hamrick now appeals.

Discussion & Decision [11] Hamrick argues that his aggregate three-year sentence with one year suspended

is inappropriate. Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B), this 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.” Our Supreme Court has Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2261 | April 15, 2020 Page 5 of 9 explained that the principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to

leaven the outliers, “not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.”

Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). “‘[W]e must and should

exercise deference to a trial court’s sentencing decision, both because Rule 7(B)

requires us to give ‘due consideration’ to that decision and because we

understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its

sentencing decisions.’” Rogers v. State, 878 N.E.2d 269, 275 (Ind. Ct. App.

2007) (quoting Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d 858, 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)), trans.

denied. “Such deference 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). In conducting

our review, we may consider “all aspects of the penal consequences imposed by

the trial court in sentencing, i.e., whether it consists of executed time,

probation, suspension, home detention, or placement in community

corrections, and whether the sentences run concurrently or consecutively.”

Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010). Hamrick bears the burden

of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Barker v. State, 994 N.E.2d

306, 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.

[12] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, the advisory sentence is

the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the

crime committed. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1081 (Ind. 2006). Here,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2261 | April 15, 2020 Page 6 of 9 Hamrick was convicted of Level 5 felony escape, for which the sentencing

range is between one and six years, with the advisory being three years. See

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6. He was also convicted of: Class A misdemeanor

resisting law enforcement, for which a person shall not be imprisoned for more

than a year; Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, for which a person

shall not be imprisoned for more than 180 days; and Class C misdemeanor

operating a vehicle without having possessed a license, for which a person shall

not be imprisoned for more than 60 days. I.C. §§ 35-50-3-2, -3, -4. The trial

court sentenced Hamrick on the felony escape conviction to the advisory three

years with one year suspended and ordered the three misdemeanor sentences –

364 days, 60 days, and 20 days – to run concurrent to each other and to the

three-year sentence.

[13] We have recognized that “[t]he nature of the offense is found in the details and

circumstances of the commission of the offense and the defendant’s

participation.” Croy v. State, 953 N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). As to

the nature of the offense, Hamrick urges that “this matter was resolved in a

short period of time and resulted in no serious injuries.” Appellant’s Brief at 11.

While indeed it is fortunate that no one was injured, Hamrick took what was a

secured scene and, in the State’s words, turned it into “an inherently dangerous

chase[.]” Appellee’s Brief at 9. Two officers chased Hamrick, who did not follow

the officers’ commands to stop, for what one officer believed was half a mile,

through alleys and between houses. Hamrick’s actions placed the community

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2261 | April 15, 2020 Page 7 of 9 in danger. The record before us does not warrant revision of Hamrick’s

sentence based on the nature of the offense.

[14] “The character of the offender is found in what we learn of the offender’s life

and conduct.” Croy, 953 N.E.2d at 664. The trial court recognized, as do we,

that Hamrick had no prior convictions and extended a “sincere apology” to

Officer Edstene. Transcript Vol. 3 at 59. The record also reflects that Hamrick

has the support of his mother, aunts, and others such as the pastor of his

church, each of whom urged that this behavior was not consistent with their

experience with Hamrick and expressed confidence in his ability to turn his life

around.

[15] After receiving evidence, the trial court indicated that, while it considered

Hamrick to have “made a mistake,” Hamrick was going to need to “soldier

through this” and “get [his] act together.” Id. at 65. The court explained to

Hamrick, “I can only put somebody on home detention or probation if I can

trust them,” and it could not “in good conscience impose home detention

because it’s an escape,” which did not reflect trustworthiness. Id. at 66.

[16] Further, on the subject of trustworthiness, the record before us reflects that

Hamrick bonded out of jail on October 5, 2018, and, several months later, on

February 14, 2019, he was arrested, his bail was revoked, and the State charged

him with Level 6 felony dealing in marijuana, Level 6 felony maintaining a

common nuisance of controlled substances, and Class B misdemeanor

possession of marijuana. This does not reflect positively on Hamrick’s

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2261 | April 15, 2020 Page 8 of 9 character and, rather, illustrates a disregard for authority. His presentence

investigation report indicates that Hamrick also had a pending cause from

January 2018 alleging Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance and

Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana and another from January 2017

for Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. As the trial

court noted, several of the pending causes involved marijuana, which the court

perceived as “a pattern” that Hamrick needed to address to avoid returning to

court, and, as the State observes, Hamrick’s conduct escalated from possessing

marijuana “to conduct warranting a charge for dealing between 30 grams and

10 pounds.” Id. at 66; Appellee’s Brief at 10. In sum, Hamrick’s character does

not warrant a reduction in his sentence.

[17] The question under App. R. 7(B) is “not whether another sentence is more

appropriate” but rather “whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Miller

v. State, 105 N.E.3d 194, 196 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). Hamrick has not established

that his aggregate three-year sentence with one year suspended to probation is

inappropriate.

[18] Judgment affirmed.

Bailey, J. and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2261 | April 15, 2020 Page 9 of 9