MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Nov 07 2016, 9:54 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as CLERK precedent or cited before any court except for the Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, and Tax Court collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Brian A. Karle Gregory F. Zoeller Ball Eggleston, PC Attorney General of Indiana Lafayette, Indiana George P. Sherman Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Darrell A. Williams, November 7, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 79A04-1602-CR-410 v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court. The Honorable Randy J. Williams, State of Indiana, Judge. Appellee-Plaintiff. Cause No. 79D01-1206-FC-27
Sharpnack, Senior Judge
Statement of the Case [1] Darrell A. Williams appeals the sentence the trial court imposed upon his
convictions of operating a motor vehicle after lifetime forfeiture of driving
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1602-CR-410 | November 7, 2016 Page 1 of 7 privileges, a Class C felony, and failure to stop after an accident resulting in
property damage, a Class C misdemeanor. We affirm.
Issue [2] Williams raises one issue, which we restate as: whether his sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender.
Facts and Procedural History [3] On May 5, 2012, Williams was involved in an automobile accident with
another driver in Tippecanoe County. His vehicle, a rental, struck the other
vehicle and damaged the “entire driver’s side” of the other vehicle. Appellant’s
App. p. 16. Williams later told the other driver that he had swerved to miss a
pothole. The other driver informed Williams that she had called the police, and
he drove away at a high rate of speed.
[4] A witness followed Williams and took a picture of his license plate. The police
used the photo to trace the vehicle to a rental car company, and the company’s
records indicated Williams had rented the vehicle that day.
[5] Later, Williams called the police and admitted he had been involved in the
accident, but he claimed the other driver had struck him. An officer checked
Williams’ information in the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles’ database and
discovered that Williams’ driving privileges had been suspended for life.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1602-CR-410 | November 7, 2016 Page 2 of 7 [6] In June 2012, the State charged Williams with operating a motor vehicle after
lifetime forfeiture of driving privileges and failure to stop after an accident
resulting in property damage. Williams requested a jury trial, and the court
issued subpoenas and summoned potential jurors. The State filed jury
instructions with the court.
[7] On March 5, 2013, the morning of trial, Williams pleaded guilty as charged
after a jury had been selected. After several continuances, Williams failed to
appear at a bond revocation hearing and a sentencing hearing in June 2013, and
the court issued a warrant for his arrest. In August 2015, Williams’ attorney at
the time advised the court that Williams had been arrested in Chicago, Illinois,
due to the court’s warrant. The trial court arranged to have Williams returned
to Tippecanoe County for sentencing.
[8] The trial court sentenced Williams to an aggregate sentence of five years, of
which two are to be served in the Indiana Department of Correction, one in the
Tippecanoe County Community Corrections program, and two on probation.
The court further directed that Williams would serve the sentences
consecutively to a pending sentence in another case.
Discussion and Decision [9] Williams claims his sentence is too long and asks that it be reduced to four
years. The State asserts the sentence is proper due to Williams’ criminal
history. In general, sentencing decisions are left to the sound discretion of the
trial court and are reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. Anglemyer v.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1602-CR-410 | November 7, 2016 Page 3 of 7 State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (2007).
Even when a trial court has acted within its discretion, this Court may review
and revise sentences pursuant to Article seven, section six of the Indiana
Constitution. Id. at 491. The authority to review and revise sentences is
implemented through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which states: “The 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.”
[10] The purpose of sentencing review under Appellate Rule 7(B) is to leaven the
outliers rather than to implement what we may perceive to be a “correct”
sentence. Gibson v. State, 43 N.E.3d 231, 241 (Ind. 2015), cert. denied, 85
U.S.L.W. 3140 (Oct. 3, 2016). Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately
turns on 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.
Keller v. State, 987 N.E.2d 1099, 1122 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. When
reviewing a sentence under Rule 7(B), we may consider all aspects of the penal
consequences imposed by the trial court, including whether a portion of the
sentence was suspended. Id. Williams bears the burden of persuading us that
his sentence is inappropriate. Id. at 1121.
[11] We start with Williams’ sentence. At the time Williams committed his
offenses, the maximum sentence for a Class C felony was eight years, the
minimum sentence was two years, and the advisory sentence was four years.
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 (2014). The maximum sentence for a Class C
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1602-CR-410 | November 7, 2016 Page 4 of 7 misdemeanor was sixty days. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-4 (1978). The trial court
sentenced Williams to five years for his Class C felony conviction, of which two
years are to be served in the Department of Correction, one year in community
corrections, and two years on probation. The court further sentenced Williams
to sixty days on the Class C misdemeanor, to be served concurrently with the
felony sentence. Thus, Williams’ aggregate sentence is only one year longer
than the advisory sentence for the Class C felony.
[12] Turning to the nature of the offenses, Williams fled even though it was obvious
he had substantially damaged the other driver’s vehicle. Williams argues he is
entitled to some credit because he called the police to discuss his role in the
accident. We disagree, because Williams attempted to blame the other driver
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Nov 07 2016, 9:54 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as CLERK precedent or cited before any court except for the Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, and Tax Court collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Brian A. Karle Gregory F. Zoeller Ball Eggleston, PC Attorney General of Indiana Lafayette, Indiana George P. Sherman Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Darrell A. Williams, November 7, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 79A04-1602-CR-410 v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court. The Honorable Randy J. Williams, State of Indiana, Judge. Appellee-Plaintiff. Cause No. 79D01-1206-FC-27
Sharpnack, Senior Judge
Statement of the Case [1] Darrell A. Williams appeals the sentence the trial court imposed upon his
convictions of operating a motor vehicle after lifetime forfeiture of driving
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1602-CR-410 | November 7, 2016 Page 1 of 7 privileges, a Class C felony, and failure to stop after an accident resulting in
property damage, a Class C misdemeanor. We affirm.
Issue [2] Williams raises one issue, which we restate as: whether his sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender.
Facts and Procedural History [3] On May 5, 2012, Williams was involved in an automobile accident with
another driver in Tippecanoe County. His vehicle, a rental, struck the other
vehicle and damaged the “entire driver’s side” of the other vehicle. Appellant’s
App. p. 16. Williams later told the other driver that he had swerved to miss a
pothole. The other driver informed Williams that she had called the police, and
he drove away at a high rate of speed.
[4] A witness followed Williams and took a picture of his license plate. The police
used the photo to trace the vehicle to a rental car company, and the company’s
records indicated Williams had rented the vehicle that day.
[5] Later, Williams called the police and admitted he had been involved in the
accident, but he claimed the other driver had struck him. An officer checked
Williams’ information in the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles’ database and
discovered that Williams’ driving privileges had been suspended for life.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1602-CR-410 | November 7, 2016 Page 2 of 7 [6] In June 2012, the State charged Williams with operating a motor vehicle after
lifetime forfeiture of driving privileges and failure to stop after an accident
resulting in property damage. Williams requested a jury trial, and the court
issued subpoenas and summoned potential jurors. The State filed jury
instructions with the court.
[7] On March 5, 2013, the morning of trial, Williams pleaded guilty as charged
after a jury had been selected. After several continuances, Williams failed to
appear at a bond revocation hearing and a sentencing hearing in June 2013, and
the court issued a warrant for his arrest. In August 2015, Williams’ attorney at
the time advised the court that Williams had been arrested in Chicago, Illinois,
due to the court’s warrant. The trial court arranged to have Williams returned
to Tippecanoe County for sentencing.
[8] The trial court sentenced Williams to an aggregate sentence of five years, of
which two are to be served in the Indiana Department of Correction, one in the
Tippecanoe County Community Corrections program, and two on probation.
The court further directed that Williams would serve the sentences
consecutively to a pending sentence in another case.
Discussion and Decision [9] Williams claims his sentence is too long and asks that it be reduced to four
years. The State asserts the sentence is proper due to Williams’ criminal
history. In general, sentencing decisions are left to the sound discretion of the
trial court and are reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. Anglemyer v.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1602-CR-410 | November 7, 2016 Page 3 of 7 State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (2007).
Even when a trial court has acted within its discretion, this Court may review
and revise sentences pursuant to Article seven, section six of the Indiana
Constitution. Id. at 491. The authority to review and revise sentences is
implemented through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which states: “The 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.”
[10] The purpose of sentencing review under Appellate Rule 7(B) is to leaven the
outliers rather than to implement what we may perceive to be a “correct”
sentence. Gibson v. State, 43 N.E.3d 231, 241 (Ind. 2015), cert. denied, 85
U.S.L.W. 3140 (Oct. 3, 2016). Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately
turns on 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.
Keller v. State, 987 N.E.2d 1099, 1122 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. When
reviewing a sentence under Rule 7(B), we may consider all aspects of the penal
consequences imposed by the trial court, including whether a portion of the
sentence was suspended. Id. Williams bears the burden of persuading us that
his sentence is inappropriate. Id. at 1121.
[11] We start with Williams’ sentence. At the time Williams committed his
offenses, the maximum sentence for a Class C felony was eight years, the
minimum sentence was two years, and the advisory sentence was four years.
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 (2014). The maximum sentence for a Class C
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1602-CR-410 | November 7, 2016 Page 4 of 7 misdemeanor was sixty days. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-4 (1978). The trial court
sentenced Williams to five years for his Class C felony conviction, of which two
years are to be served in the Department of Correction, one year in community
corrections, and two years on probation. The court further sentenced Williams
to sixty days on the Class C misdemeanor, to be served concurrently with the
felony sentence. Thus, Williams’ aggregate sentence is only one year longer
than the advisory sentence for the Class C felony.
[12] Turning to the nature of the offenses, Williams fled even though it was obvious
he had substantially damaged the other driver’s vehicle. Williams argues he is
entitled to some credit because he called the police to discuss his role in the
accident. We disagree, because Williams attempted to blame the other driver
for the accident even though the other driver and a witness told police Williams
had steered his vehicle into the other vehicle.
[13] As for the character of the offender, Williams, who was thirty-four years old in
2013, has a lengthy criminal history. Beginning in 1997, and continuing until
the date of these crimes, Williams accrued ten misdemeanor convictions and
four felony convictions. The misdemeanor convictions include three counts of
operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, two counts of driving while
suspended, one count of operating a vehicle while never receiving a license,
disorderly conduct, false informing, and possession of marijuana. Williams has
felony convictions for burglary, operating while intoxicated with a prior
conviction, operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic offender, and resisting law
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1602-CR-410 | November 7, 2016 Page 5 of 7 enforcement. Williams was unable to go more than two or three years without
committing a new offense.
[14] Williams claims his current conviction of operating a motor vehicle after
lifetime forfeiture of driving privileges is based on his prior motor vehicle-
related convictions, and it is inappropriate to consider those convictions in
support of an enhanced sentence in this case. We disagree. When reviewing
the sentence with respect to the character of the offender, we engage in a broad
consideration of a defendant’s qualities. Williams v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1205, 1211
(Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Williams’ numerous convictions for motor vehicle-
related offenses demonstrate an absolute unwillingness to comply with the law.
In any event, Williams’ other convictions also indicate that he chooses not to
change his criminal conduct despite being given numerous opportunities.
[15] Williams was on probation when he committed his current crimes. In addition,
courts have revoked Williams’ probation on two prior occasions. Finally, a
court revoked Williams’ sentence on community corrections in one case, and in
another case community corrections refused to accept him at all. In the current
case, Williams plead guilty but then left the state for over two years, remaining
at liberty until he was arrested. Williams’ flight is further proof of his disregard
for the law.
[16] Williams points to his guilty plea as proof of his positive qualities, but the
evidence against him was extensive. Moreover, he did not plead guilty until the
day of trial, after significant resources had been expended by the trial court and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1602-CR-410 | November 7, 2016 Page 6 of 7 both parties and the jury had been assembled. Under these circumstances,
Williams has failed to demonstrate that his aggravated sentence is
inappropriate.
Conclusion [17] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
[18] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1602-CR-410 | November 7, 2016 Page 7 of 7