Devan Lampe v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 21, 2017
• Docket: 34A02-1706-CR-1306
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Sep 21 2017, 9:56 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), CLERK this Memorandum Decision shall not be Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals regarded as precedent or cited before any 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 Donald E.C. Leicht Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Kokomo, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Jesse R. Drum Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Devan Lampe, September 21, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 34A02-1706-CR-1306 v. Appeal from the Howard Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Lynn Murray, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 34C01-1602-F2-34

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1706-CR-1306 | September 21, 2017 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] Appellant-Defendant Devan Lampe was released from incarceration on

December 11, 2015. A few days later, during the early morning hours of

December 14, 2015, Lampe and his friend James Wimmer broke into a home

with the intent to steal from the home’s occupants. Once inside the home,

Wimmer forced the female occupant of the home into the bedroom closet and

forcibly raped her while Lampe confined the male occupant to the living room

by holding a gun to his head. Once the rape was complete, Lampe forced the

male occupant into the closet with the female occupant.

[2] On February 2, 2016, Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (“the State”)

charged Lampe with one count of Level 2 felony burglary and two courts of

Level 3 felony criminal confinement. Lampe subsequently pled guilty to one

count of Level 3 felony burglary. In exchange for Lampe’s guilty plea, the State

agreed to dismiss the remaining counts. Following a sentencing hearing, the

trial court sentenced Lampe to a sixteen-year term of incarceration. Lampe

appeals, arguing that his sentence is inappropriate. Because we conclude

otherwise, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] Lampe began abusing alcohol and drugs when he was approximately eleven or

twelve years old. Since that time, Lampe has continued to abuse drugs and has

committed numerous criminal acts. Lampe was released from incarceration in

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1706-CR-1306 | September 21, 2017 Page 2 of 6 relation to one of these criminal acts on Friday, December 11, 2015. By the

following Sunday, Lampe had spent all of his money on drugs. In an attempt

to acquire additional money with which they could purchase drugs, Lampe and

Wimmer decided to rob the victims.

[4] During the early morning hours of December 14, 2015, Lampe and Wimmer

broke into the victims’ home. Upon entering the home, Wimmer forced the

female victim into a bedroom closet while Lampe confined her husband to the

living room by holding a gun to his head. Once in the closet, Wimmer forcibly

raped the female victim. After the rape was completed, Lampe forced the male

victim into the closet with his wife.

[5] On February 2, 2016, the State charged Lampe with one count of Level 2 felony

burglary and two courts of Level 3 felony criminal confinement. On April 26,

2017, Lampe pled guilty to one count of Level 3 felony burglary. In exchange

for Lampe’s guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining counts. In

connection to the plea, the Howard County Probation Department

recommended a sixteen-year sentence, with fourteen years of incarceration and

two years suspended to probation. On May 31, 2017, the trial court accepted

Lampe’s guilty plea and sentenced him to a sixteen-year term of incarceration.

Discussion and Decision [6] Lampe contends that his sixteen-year sentence is inappropriate. In challenging

the appropriateness of his sentence, Lampe asserts that the trial court should

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1706-CR-1306 | September 21, 2017 Page 3 of 6 have ordered that a portion of his sixteen-year sentence been suspended to

probation, arguing “[w]ithout a period of Supervised Probation, society will not

have done all it could do for Lampe and for any future [victims].” Appellant’s

Br. p. 13. We disagree.

[7] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “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.” In analyzing such claims, we “‘concentrate

less on comparing the facts of [the case at issue] to others, whether real or

hypothetical, and more on focusing on the nature, extent, and depravity of the

offense for which the defendant is being sentenced, and what it reveals about

the defendant’s character.’” Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct. App.

2008) (quoting Brown v. State, 760 N.E.2d 243, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans.

denied). The defendant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is

inappropriate. Sanchez v. State, 891 N.E.2d 174, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[8] With respect to the nature of Lampe’s offense, Lampe acknowledges that his

criminal acts were serious but argues that the pain caused to his victim “was not

the most horrible ‘physical pain’ imaginable.” Appellant’s Br. p. 11. Lampe

supports this argument by asserting that “[t]here is no evidence that [the victim]

was murdered, tortured, burned alive, doused with acid, [or] brutalized multiple

times over many hours or days.” Appellant’s App. p. 11. Upon breaking into

the victims’ home during the early morning hours, Wimmer forcibly raped the

female victim in her bedroom closet while Lampe confined her husband by

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1706-CR-1306 | September 21, 2017 Page 4 of 6 holding a gun to his head. After the rape was completed, Lampe forced the

male victim into the closet with his wife. We find these actions to be atrocious

and reject Lampe’s attempt to minimize the serious nature of these actions by

pointing out that the pain suffered by the victims could have, theoretically, been

worse.

[9] As for Lampe’s character, the record reveals that Lampe has an extensive

criminal history which includes several juvenile adjudications, prior

misdemeanor and felony convictions, and prior probation violations. Lampe’s

juvenile adjudications include adjudications for actions which would have

constituted the following criminal offenses if committed by an adult: multiple

adjudications for battery resulting in bodily injury, criminal mischief with

damage, theft, and pointing a firearm. Another juvenile adjudication for

receiving stolen property was dismissed after Lampe successfully completed

court-ordered programing and paid restitution. As an adult, Lampe has

amassed a criminal history which includes the following misdemeanor

convictions: conversion, public intoxication, disorderly conduct, resisting law

enforcement. In addition, his criminal history includes a conviction for Level 6

felony possession of precursors with the intent to manufacture

methamphetamine. Lampe’s criminal history also includes prior probation

violations.

[10] While incarcerated in the instant matter awaiting sentencing, Lampe received

approximately fourteen disciplinary “write-ups” and has been found guilty of at

least twelve of these disciplinary violations. Appellant’s App. Vol. IV –

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1706-CR-1306 | September 21, 2017 Page 5 of 6 Confidential, p. 12. Further, the pre-sentence investigation completed prior to

sentencing found that Lampe is a “VERY HIGH” risk to reoffend. Appellant’s

App. Vol. IV – Confidential, p. 15. This finding is especially troubling

considering that Lampe committed the criminal acts at issue in this case fewer

than five days after being released from incarceration. Lampe’s actions,

considered with his criminal history, demonstrate that Lampe has not only a

disdain for the criminal justice system, but also a disdain for the rights and

safety of others. As such, we conclude that Lampe has failed to prove that his

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

[11] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

May, J., and Barnes, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1706-CR-1306 | September 21, 2017 Page 6 of 6