Christopher F. Raddenbach v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 2, 2018
• Docket: 90A02-1709-CR-2163
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Feb 02 2018, 5:53 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 Jeremy K. Nix Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Huntington, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

George P. Sherman Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Christopher F. Raddenbach, February 2, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 90A02-1709-CR-2163 v. Appeal from the Wells Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Andrew K. Appellee-Plaintiff Antrim, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 90D01-1602-CM-40

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1709-CR-2163 | February 2, 2018 Page 1 of 5 [1] Christopher F. Raddenbach appeals the sentence imposed following his plea of

guilty to Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an alcohol

concentration equivalent of .15 or more and his admission to being a habitual

vehicular substance offender. On appeal, Raddenbach argues that his sentence

is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On February 6, 2016, two Wells County Sheriff’s Deputies had parked their

vehicles in a parking lot across the street from an apartment building. While

there, the deputies noticed a man, later identified as Raddenbach, standing in

front of the apartment building and waving his arms at them. Raddenbach gave

the deputies the middle finger before going inside the building. When

Raddenbach came back outside about a minute later, he got into a silver SUV,

backed the vehicle out of its parking spot, and turned it to face the deputies

across the street. For the next several minutes, Raddenbach alternated between

flashing the vehicle’s bright headlights and leaving them on for brief intervals.

[4] The deputies then drove across the street to speak to Raddenbach, and

Raddenbach told them that he was upset because he thought the deputies had

been deliberately shining their headlights into his apartment window.

Raddenbach displayed multiple signs of intoxication during this exchange and

he admitted that he had been drinking. After Raddenbach failed field sobriety

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1709-CR-2163 | February 2, 2018 Page 2 of 5 tests, he submitted to a certified chemical breath test, which revealed an alcohol

concentration equivalent of .159.

[5] As a result of these events, the State charged Raddenbach with Class A

misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent of

.15 or more and Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

The State also alleged that Raddenbach was a habitual vehicular substance

offender. Raddenbach failed to appear for a hearing on March 3, 2016, and his

whereabouts were unknown until he was arrested on February 2, 2017.

[6] One June 15, 2017, Raddenbach pled guilty to the Class A misdemeanor charge

and admitted to being a habitual vehicular substance offender, and the State

dismissed the Class C misdemeanor charge. On August 17, 2017, the trial court

sentenced Raddenbach to one year for the Class A misdemeanor, enhanced by

three years based on the habitual vehicular substance offender finding.

Raddenbach now appeals.

Discussion & Decision

[7] Raddenbach argues that his four-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate.

Article 7, section 4 of the Indiana Constitution grants our Supreme Court the

power to review and revise criminal sentences. See Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d

1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 978 (2015). Pursuant to Ind.

Appellate Rule 7, the Supreme Court authorized this court to perform the same

task. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). Per App. R. 7(B),

we may revise a sentence “if after due consideration of the trial court’s decision,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1709-CR-2163 | February 2, 2018 Page 3 of 5 the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the

offense and the character of the offender.” Inman v. State, 4 N.E.3d 190, 203

(Ind. 2014) (quoting App. R. 7). “Sentencing review under Appellate Rule 7(B)

is very deferential to the trial court.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind.

2012). “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).

[8] The determination of whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate “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.” Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134, 1145 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Cardwell, 895

N.E.2d at 1224). Moreover, “[t]he principal role of such review is to attempt to

leaven the outliers.” Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. 2013). It is

not our goal in this endeavor to achieve the perceived “correct” sentence in

each case. Knapp, 9 N.E.3d at 1292. Accordingly, “the question under

Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather,

the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” King v. State,

894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (emphasis in original).

[9] In order to assess the appropriateness of a sentence, we first look to the

statutory range established for the classification of the relevant offense.

Raddenbach committed a Class A misdemeanor and was found to be a habitual

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1709-CR-2163 | February 2, 2018 Page 4 of 5 vehicular substance offender. Thus, the trial court had the discretion to

sentence Raddenbach to a term of up to nine years in prison. See Ind. Code §

35-50-3-2 (providing that a person who commits a Class A misdemeanor shall

be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than one year); Ind. Code § 9-30-

15.5-2 (providing that a person found to be a habitual vehicular substance

offender shall be sentenced to an additional term of at least one year but not

more than eight years). Raddenbach was sentenced to four years in prison.

[10] The nature of the offense in this case is, for the most part, unremarkable.

However, Raddenbach’s character is sufficient standing alone to support his

four-year sentence. Raddenbach has a long criminal history, including

convictions for theft, trespassing, false informing, leaving the scene of an

accident, operating a vehicle while a habitual traffic violator, operating a

vehicle after a lifetime license forfeiture, and multiple operating while

intoxicated offenses. Raddenbach has also violated probation numerous times,

and he was on parole at the time of the instant offense. We also note that

Raddenbach failed to appear for a hearing in this case on March 3, 2016, and

his whereabouts were unknown until he was arrested on February 2, 2017. For

all of these reasons, we cannot conclude that Raddenbach’s four-year sentence

is inappropriate.

[11] Judgment affirmed.

[12] May, J. and Vaidik, C.J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1709-CR-2163 | February 2, 2018 Page 5 of 5