MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any May 16 2019, 6:05 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 Ronald J. Moore Curtis T. Hill, Jr. The Moore Law Firm, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Richmond, Indiana Erik J. Bryant Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Darren Lee Walker, May 16, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-2712 v. Appeal from the Wayne Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Charles K. Todd, Appellee-Plaintiff. Jr., Judge Trial Court Cause No. 89D01-1602-F3-14
Friedlander, Senior Judge.
[1] Darren Lee Walker appeals the nineteen-year sentence the trial court imposed
after he pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine or narcotic drug in an amount
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2712 | May 16, 2019 Page 1 of 6 greater than twenty-eight grams, a Level 3 felony; resisting law enforcement
while using a motor vehicle, a Level 6 felony; and being an habitual offender.
We affirm.
[2] In early February 2016, Richmond Police Department officers arrested two
people for drug possession after they were seen leaving Walker’s apartment.
Both persons claimed they had purchased drugs from Walker. The officers
continued to monitor Walker’s apartment.
[3] On February 12, 2016, Officer James Mastriano and several other officers saw a
woman enter Walker’s apartment. They believed the woman was Camella
Baker, for whom there was an active arrest warrant in connection with dealing
in narcotics. Four police officers approached Walker’s front door to talk with
Walker, while Officer Mastriano and another officer went to the back door.
[4] A short time later, Walker and the woman came out of the rear door of his
apartment. Officer Mastriano approached them, identified himself as a police
officer, and asked them to stop. Instead of stopping, Walker approached
Officer Mastriano while he reached into his pockets. Officer Mastriano drew
his weapon and ordered Walker to remove his hands from his pockets. Walker
complied.
[5] Next, the officer approached Walker and conducted a pat down for weapons.
He noticed a large, clear plastic baggie hanging out of one of Walker’s pants
pockets. Officer Mastriano saw an off-white substance in the bag and believed
it to be cocaine. He placed Walker in custody and seized the baggie. The
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2712 | May 16, 2019 Page 2 of 6 contents of the bag were tested, and the results showed that the bag contained
over thirty-three grams of cocaine.
[6] On February 18, 2016, the State charged Walker with possession of cocaine or
narcotic drug in an amount greater than twenty-eight grams, a Level 3 felony.
The State further alleged that Walker was an habitual offender. On October 10,
2016, Walker posted bond and was released from jail.
[7] On May 15, 2017, Walker filed a motion to suppress, claiming the State did not
have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to detain and search him. The trial
court held a hearing and later denied the motion.
[8] Meanwhile, on June 25, 2017, a police officer stopped a vehicle being driven by
Walker after the officer observed a traffic violation. Walker initially stopped
but subsequently fled in his vehicle. An officer chased Walker with lights and
sirens activated, but Walker continued to flee. He eventually stopped and was
taken into custody.
[9] On March 8, 2018, the State filed an amended information, charging Walker
with resisting law enforcement while using a motor vehicle, a Level 6 felony.
On April 30, 2018, the parties filed a proposed plea agreement with the trial
court. During a subsequent court hearing, Walker repudiated the proposed plea
agreement, and the court informed the parties that no further plea agreements
would be accepted.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2712 | May 16, 2019 Page 3 of 6 [10] On July 30, 2018, Walker filed a notice of intent to plead guilty. The trial court
held a hearing and determined that Walker was pleading guilty as charged
without a plea agreement. The court accepted his guilty plea and sentenced
Walker to serve nineteen years executed. This appeal followed.
[11] Walker argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offenses and his character. He asks the Court to reduce his sentence to sixteen
years, with eight years suspended to probation.
[12] Article VII, section six of the Indiana Constitution authorizes this Court to
review and revise a defendant’s sentence in criminal cases. This authority is
implemented through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides: “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.”
[13] An appellant bears the burden of proving that a sentence meets the
inappropriateness standard. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006).
Whether we regard a sentence as appropriate at the end of the day 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.
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008). In reviewing the defendant’s
sentence, the question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but
whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. Mateo v. State, 981 N.E.2d 59
(Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2712 | May 16, 2019 Page 4 of 6 [14] At the time Walker committed his offenses, the advisory sentence for a Level 3
felony was nine years, with a minimum sentence of three years and a maximum
sentence of sixteen years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5 (2014). In addition, the
advisory sentence for a Level 6 felony was one year, with a minimum sentence
of six months and a maximum sentence of two and a half years. Ind. Code §
35-50-2-7 (2014). Finally, as for the habitual offender sentencing enhancement,
a person convicted of murder or a Level 1 through Level 4 felony could be
sentenced to an additional fixed term of between six and twenty years. Ind.
Code § 35-50-2-8 (2015).
[15] The trial court sentenced Walker to nine years for Level 3 felony possession of
cocaine, enhanced by nine years due to the habitual offender enhancement.
The court further sentenced him to one year for Level 6 felony resisting law
enforcement. In addition, the court ordered Walker to serve his sentences
consecutively, for a total sentence of nineteen years. His sentence is well short
of the potential maximum of twenty-eight and a half years.
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 May 16 2019, 6:05 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 Ronald J. Moore Curtis T. Hill, Jr. The Moore Law Firm, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Richmond, Indiana Erik J. Bryant Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Darren Lee Walker, May 16, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-2712 v. Appeal from the Wayne Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Charles K. Todd, Appellee-Plaintiff. Jr., Judge Trial Court Cause No. 89D01-1602-F3-14
Friedlander, Senior Judge.
[1] Darren Lee Walker appeals the nineteen-year sentence the trial court imposed
after he pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine or narcotic drug in an amount
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2712 | May 16, 2019 Page 1 of 6 greater than twenty-eight grams, a Level 3 felony; resisting law enforcement
while using a motor vehicle, a Level 6 felony; and being an habitual offender.
We affirm.
[2] In early February 2016, Richmond Police Department officers arrested two
people for drug possession after they were seen leaving Walker’s apartment.
Both persons claimed they had purchased drugs from Walker. The officers
continued to monitor Walker’s apartment.
[3] On February 12, 2016, Officer James Mastriano and several other officers saw a
woman enter Walker’s apartment. They believed the woman was Camella
Baker, for whom there was an active arrest warrant in connection with dealing
in narcotics. Four police officers approached Walker’s front door to talk with
Walker, while Officer Mastriano and another officer went to the back door.
[4] A short time later, Walker and the woman came out of the rear door of his
apartment. Officer Mastriano approached them, identified himself as a police
officer, and asked them to stop. Instead of stopping, Walker approached
Officer Mastriano while he reached into his pockets. Officer Mastriano drew
his weapon and ordered Walker to remove his hands from his pockets. Walker
complied.
[5] Next, the officer approached Walker and conducted a pat down for weapons.
He noticed a large, clear plastic baggie hanging out of one of Walker’s pants
pockets. Officer Mastriano saw an off-white substance in the bag and believed
it to be cocaine. He placed Walker in custody and seized the baggie. The
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2712 | May 16, 2019 Page 2 of 6 contents of the bag were tested, and the results showed that the bag contained
over thirty-three grams of cocaine.
[6] On February 18, 2016, the State charged Walker with possession of cocaine or
narcotic drug in an amount greater than twenty-eight grams, a Level 3 felony.
The State further alleged that Walker was an habitual offender. On October 10,
2016, Walker posted bond and was released from jail.
[7] On May 15, 2017, Walker filed a motion to suppress, claiming the State did not
have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to detain and search him. The trial
court held a hearing and later denied the motion.
[8] Meanwhile, on June 25, 2017, a police officer stopped a vehicle being driven by
Walker after the officer observed a traffic violation. Walker initially stopped
but subsequently fled in his vehicle. An officer chased Walker with lights and
sirens activated, but Walker continued to flee. He eventually stopped and was
taken into custody.
[9] On March 8, 2018, the State filed an amended information, charging Walker
with resisting law enforcement while using a motor vehicle, a Level 6 felony.
On April 30, 2018, the parties filed a proposed plea agreement with the trial
court. During a subsequent court hearing, Walker repudiated the proposed plea
agreement, and the court informed the parties that no further plea agreements
would be accepted.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2712 | May 16, 2019 Page 3 of 6 [10] On July 30, 2018, Walker filed a notice of intent to plead guilty. The trial court
held a hearing and determined that Walker was pleading guilty as charged
without a plea agreement. The court accepted his guilty plea and sentenced
Walker to serve nineteen years executed. This appeal followed.
[11] Walker argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offenses and his character. He asks the Court to reduce his sentence to sixteen
years, with eight years suspended to probation.
[12] Article VII, section six of the Indiana Constitution authorizes this Court to
review and revise a defendant’s sentence in criminal cases. This authority is
implemented through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides: “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.”
[13] An appellant bears the burden of proving that a sentence meets the
inappropriateness standard. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006).
Whether we regard a sentence as appropriate at the end of the day 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.
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008). In reviewing the defendant’s
sentence, the question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but
whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. Mateo v. State, 981 N.E.2d 59
(Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2712 | May 16, 2019 Page 4 of 6 [14] At the time Walker committed his offenses, the advisory sentence for a Level 3
felony was nine years, with a minimum sentence of three years and a maximum
sentence of sixteen years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5 (2014). In addition, the
advisory sentence for a Level 6 felony was one year, with a minimum sentence
of six months and a maximum sentence of two and a half years. Ind. Code §
35-50-2-7 (2014). Finally, as for the habitual offender sentencing enhancement,
a person convicted of murder or a Level 1 through Level 4 felony could be
sentenced to an additional fixed term of between six and twenty years. Ind.
Code § 35-50-2-8 (2015).
[15] The trial court sentenced Walker to nine years for Level 3 felony possession of
cocaine, enhanced by nine years due to the habitual offender enhancement.
The court further sentenced him to one year for Level 6 felony resisting law
enforcement. In addition, the court ordered Walker to serve his sentences
consecutively, for a total sentence of nineteen years. His sentence is well short
of the potential maximum of twenty-eight and a half years.
[16] Turning to the nature of the offenses, Walker was found to have thirty-three
grams of cocaine on his person, an amount well above the twenty-eight-gram
minimum for a Level 3 felony. Officer Mastriano testified that most of the
controlled drug buys in Richmond are for amounts ranging from one-half gram
to one gram, so Walker possessed a comparatively large quantity of cocaine. In
addition, it is troubling that Walker committed felony resisting law enforcement
while out on bail.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2712 | May 16, 2019 Page 5 of 6 [17] As for Walker’s character, he was thirty-five years old at sentencing, and he has
a substantial criminal record. The habitual offender enhancement was based on
prior felony convictions for dealing in cocaine, a Class B felony, and battery
and/or intimidation, both Class C felonies. He has other prior felony
convictions for Class B felony dealing in cocaine and Class D felony failure to
appear. In addition, Walker has accrued five misdemeanor convictions of
driving while suspended.
[18] Walker was on parole when he was initially arrested in this case. He has been
placed on probation in the past and has twice violated the terms of probation.
His failure to comply with the terms of parole, probation, and bail demonstrates
that he has refused to take advantage of alternatives to incarceration.
[19] By his own admission, Walker has not held a steady job since he was in high
school. He has instead earned money by collecting and selling scrap. Walker
has seven children, and he pays court-ordered child support for only two of
them. Walker claims he “is capable of . . . productive reentry into the
community.” Appellant’s Br. p. 12. His lengthy criminal record, in
conjunction with his poor work history, demonstrates an unwillingness to
reform. He has failed to persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate.
[20] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
[21] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Baker, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2712 | May 16, 2019 Page 6 of 6