Justin Shane Brabson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 23, 2018
• Docket: 32A05-1707-CR-1678
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Jan 23 2018, 10:22 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court

the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Brooklyn, Indiana Chandra K. Hein Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Justin Shane Brabson, January 23, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 32A05-1707-CR-1678 v. Appeal from the Hendricks Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Plaintiff. Mark A. Smith, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 32D04-1606-MR-1

Kirsch, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1707-CR-1678 | January 23, 2018 Page 1 of 4 [1] Justin Shane Brabson (“Brabson”) appeals his seventy-two-year sentence for the

murder of his brother and his use of a firearm contending that it was

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

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] Brabson and his older brother, Christopher, lived together in an apartment in

Brownsburg, Indiana. On June 9, 2016, Brabson shot his brother eleven times

with a semi-automatic Beretta loaded with hollow point bullets. One shot

struck Christopher’s aorta. Other shots struck his fingers, forearm, elbow, and

pelvic region. The fatal shot was execution-style to the back of Christopher’s

head, severing his brain stem.

[4] Police were called to the scene and discovered Christopher’s body on the

kitchen floor. They began to search and found Brabson’s Toyota Camry

abandoned on the side of the road. In the Camry, officers found a card that

read, “Defensive Shooting Concepts,” receipts for ammunition, and a fully-

loaded magazine that was consistent with a magazine for a Beretta. In the

trunk, they found a silhouette from a shooting range with ninety-one shots in it,

focusing on the heart and head areas. Police found Brabson at a nearby motel

where he had registered under a different name.

[5] A jury found Brabson guilty of murder, and Brabson stipulated to the firearm

enhancement. The trial court sentenced Brabson to sixty-two years executed

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1707-CR-1678 | January 23, 2018 Page 2 of 4 for his murder conviction, which was enhanced by ten years by the use of a

firearm for an aggregate sentence of seventy-two years. Brabson now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [6] A sentence authorized by statute can be revised on appeal where it is

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the

offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). Our analysis is not to determine “whether

another sentence is more appropriate”; rather, it is to determine “whether the

sentence imposed is inappropriate.” King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2008) (emphasis omitted). Our analysis is not a matter of second guessing

the trial court’s sentence. Indeed, sentence review is very deferential to the trial

court. Felder v. State, 870 N.E.2d 554, 559 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The burden is

on the defendant to persuade the appellate court that his sentence is

inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Brabson

has failed to do so.

[7] The nature of Brabson’s offense warrants an enhanced sentence for a number of

reasons:

First, he shot and killed his brother without provocation.

Second, he shot his brother eleven times, the last of which was execution-style to the back of his brother’s head.

Third, he used hollow point bullets which cause maximum injury.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1707-CR-1678 | January 23, 2018 Page 3 of 4 Fourth, he practiced shooting by firing numerous shots into the head and heart of a cut-out human target on the day before he killed his brother.

Finally, he fled the murder scene, knowing that he had killed his brother.

[8] Similarly, Brabson’s character supports the imposition of an enhanced sentence.

Mental health experts testified that he was fully aware of his actions, did not

exhibit any mental illness that would impair his culpability, and was apathetic

about having killed his brother. At no point, did Brabson apologize for having

killed his brother.

[9] Based on our review of the nature of Brabson’s offense and his character, we

conclude that his aggregate seventy-two-year sentence for the murder of his

brother was not inappropriate.

[10] Affirmed.

[11] Bailey, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1707-CR-1678 | January 23, 2018 Page 4 of 4