MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Mar 23 2018, 9:55 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Sean C. Mullins Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Crown Point, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Henry A. Flores, Jr. Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Lawrence Paul Whitfield, March 23, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 45A03-1711-CR-2613 v. Appeal from the Lake Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Samuel L. Cappas, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 45G04-1705-F4-21
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1711-CR-2613 | March 23, 2018 Page 1 of 6 STATEMENT OF THE CASE [1] Appellant-Defendant, Lawrence Paul Whitfield (Whitfield), appeals his
aggravated five-year sentence following a guilty plea to robbery, a Level 5
felony, Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1(1).
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE [3] Whitfield presents us with one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether
the aggravated sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and
Whitfield’s character.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY [4] On April 3, 2017, nineteen-year-old Whitfield and a friend knocked on the door
of sixty-seven-year-old Charles Hicks’ (Hicks) residence. When Hicks, a family
friend, opened the door, Whitfield and his friend “forced” themselves into the
home. (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 9). Inside, Whitfield “began threatening
[Hicks] and took his phone and wallet containing $87.” (Appellant’s App. Vol.
II, p. 9). Then, Whitfield walked Hicks to the bank where Whitfield “forced
[Hicks] to withdraw money from his account.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 9).
Hicks withdrew $30, of which Whitfield took half. At the bank, Hicks
managed to warn the teller that he was being held against his will and police
were called.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1711-CR-2613 | March 23, 2018 Page 2 of 6 [5] On May 3, 2017, the State filed an Information, charging Whitfield with
burglary, a Level 4 felony; robbery, a Level 5 felony; residential entry, a Level 6
felony; and kidnapping, a Level 6 felony. On September 13, 2017, pursuant to
a plea agreement with the State, Whitfield pled guilty to Level 5 felony robbery,
with all other charges to be dismissed and sentencing left open to the trial court.
On October 11, 2017, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing and
sentenced Whitfield to an aggravated sentence of five years, with three years
executed, one year in community corrections, and one year suspended to
probation.
[6] Whitfield now appeals. Additional facts will be provided if necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION [7] Whitfield contends that the trial court’s imposition of an aggravated sentence
was inappropriate in light of his character and the nature of the offense. He
requests us to reduce his sentence to be a mitigated, suspended sentence, served
on probation. The Indiana Constitution authorizes appellate review and
revision of criminal sentences. Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6. If, after due
consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find the sentence inappropriate in
light of the nature of the offense and the character of the defendant, we may
revise the sentence accordingly. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). In assessing whether
a sentence is inappropriate, appellate courts may take into account whether a
portion of the sentence is suspended or otherwise crafted using the variety of
sentencing tools available to the trial court. Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023,
1025 (Ind. 2010). The defendant bears the burden of persuading this court that Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1711-CR-2613 | March 23, 2018 Page 3 of 6 his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080
(Ind. 2006).
[8] Whitfield pled guilty to robbery as a Level 5 felony. “The advisory sentence is
the starting point the Legislature selected as appropriate for the crime
committed.” Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014). The sentencing
range for a Level 5 felony is a “fixed term of between one (1) and six (6) years,
with the advisory sentence being three (3) years.” I.C. § 35-50-2-6(b). Here, the
trial court imposed an aggravated sentence of five years.
[9] The “nature of the offense” prong compares the defendant’s actions with the
required showing to sustain a conviction under the charged offense.” Anderson
v. State, 989 N.E.2d 823, 827 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. Looking at the
circumstances before us, we note that Whitfield forced himself into the home of
an elderly family friend and threatened him into handing over his phone and
wallet, containing $87. After robbing Hicks in his own residence, Whitfield
escorted him to the bank and forced him to withdraw $30, of which Whitfield
took half. The trial court summarized the situation succinctly as:
This crime was not necessarily about the amount of money. This crime is about invading someone’s home and manipulating him and intimidating him and invading his privacy. A man’s home is supposed to be his castle. You broke that rule. You are a situation of the young and the strong preying on the weak and the old.
(Sent. Transcript p. 25).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1711-CR-2613 | March 23, 2018 Page 4 of 6 [10] In considering Whitfield’s character, it is appropriate to examine his criminal
history. See Bryant v. State, 841 N.E.2d 1154, 1156-57 (Ind. 2006). Although
still young, Whitfield has already amassed a criminal record, which includes at
least eleven contacts with law enforcement. The trial court reflected during the
sentencing hearing:
You know, so then look at your presentence report. You had two juvenile cases. And then starting in 2015, you get – as an adult, you get disorderly conduct, criminal trespass, an auto theft, criminal damage to property, this burglary/robbery, another disorderly conduct, another criminal trespass, failure to return to lawful detention. And the theft is a misdemeanor. As the State points out 11 [contacts with the juvenile justice system]. So nine were after you assured [the juvenile trial court judge] that you weren’t going to do anything. So nine times, from my perspective, you broke that vow to him. And you stand here in front of me making the same vow. I’ve got to tell you, your credibility is not too good with me, because you have [a] pattern of not conforming yourself to the norms of society.
(Sent. Tr. pp. 23-24). Whitfield has received probation, deferments, and pre-
trial work release, but has violated the trial court’s gifts of leniency numerous
times.
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), Mar 23 2018, 9:55 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Sean C. Mullins Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Crown Point, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Henry A. Flores, Jr. Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Lawrence Paul Whitfield, March 23, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 45A03-1711-CR-2613 v. Appeal from the Lake Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Samuel L. Cappas, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 45G04-1705-F4-21
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1711-CR-2613 | March 23, 2018 Page 1 of 6 STATEMENT OF THE CASE [1] Appellant-Defendant, Lawrence Paul Whitfield (Whitfield), appeals his
aggravated five-year sentence following a guilty plea to robbery, a Level 5
felony, Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1(1).
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE [3] Whitfield presents us with one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether
the aggravated sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and
Whitfield’s character.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY [4] On April 3, 2017, nineteen-year-old Whitfield and a friend knocked on the door
of sixty-seven-year-old Charles Hicks’ (Hicks) residence. When Hicks, a family
friend, opened the door, Whitfield and his friend “forced” themselves into the
home. (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 9). Inside, Whitfield “began threatening
[Hicks] and took his phone and wallet containing $87.” (Appellant’s App. Vol.
II, p. 9). Then, Whitfield walked Hicks to the bank where Whitfield “forced
[Hicks] to withdraw money from his account.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 9).
Hicks withdrew $30, of which Whitfield took half. At the bank, Hicks
managed to warn the teller that he was being held against his will and police
were called.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1711-CR-2613 | March 23, 2018 Page 2 of 6 [5] On May 3, 2017, the State filed an Information, charging Whitfield with
burglary, a Level 4 felony; robbery, a Level 5 felony; residential entry, a Level 6
felony; and kidnapping, a Level 6 felony. On September 13, 2017, pursuant to
a plea agreement with the State, Whitfield pled guilty to Level 5 felony robbery,
with all other charges to be dismissed and sentencing left open to the trial court.
On October 11, 2017, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing and
sentenced Whitfield to an aggravated sentence of five years, with three years
executed, one year in community corrections, and one year suspended to
probation.
[6] Whitfield now appeals. Additional facts will be provided if necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION [7] Whitfield contends that the trial court’s imposition of an aggravated sentence
was inappropriate in light of his character and the nature of the offense. He
requests us to reduce his sentence to be a mitigated, suspended sentence, served
on probation. The Indiana Constitution authorizes appellate review and
revision of criminal sentences. Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6. If, after due
consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find the sentence inappropriate in
light of the nature of the offense and the character of the defendant, we may
revise the sentence accordingly. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). In assessing whether
a sentence is inappropriate, appellate courts may take into account whether a
portion of the sentence is suspended or otherwise crafted using the variety of
sentencing tools available to the trial court. Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023,
1025 (Ind. 2010). The defendant bears the burden of persuading this court that Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1711-CR-2613 | March 23, 2018 Page 3 of 6 his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080
(Ind. 2006).
[8] Whitfield pled guilty to robbery as a Level 5 felony. “The advisory sentence is
the starting point the Legislature selected as appropriate for the crime
committed.” Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014). The sentencing
range for a Level 5 felony is a “fixed term of between one (1) and six (6) years,
with the advisory sentence being three (3) years.” I.C. § 35-50-2-6(b). Here, the
trial court imposed an aggravated sentence of five years.
[9] The “nature of the offense” prong compares the defendant’s actions with the
required showing to sustain a conviction under the charged offense.” Anderson
v. State, 989 N.E.2d 823, 827 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. Looking at the
circumstances before us, we note that Whitfield forced himself into the home of
an elderly family friend and threatened him into handing over his phone and
wallet, containing $87. After robbing Hicks in his own residence, Whitfield
escorted him to the bank and forced him to withdraw $30, of which Whitfield
took half. The trial court summarized the situation succinctly as:
This crime was not necessarily about the amount of money. This crime is about invading someone’s home and manipulating him and intimidating him and invading his privacy. A man’s home is supposed to be his castle. You broke that rule. You are a situation of the young and the strong preying on the weak and the old.
(Sent. Transcript p. 25).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1711-CR-2613 | March 23, 2018 Page 4 of 6 [10] In considering Whitfield’s character, it is appropriate to examine his criminal
history. See Bryant v. State, 841 N.E.2d 1154, 1156-57 (Ind. 2006). Although
still young, Whitfield has already amassed a criminal record, which includes at
least eleven contacts with law enforcement. The trial court reflected during the
sentencing hearing:
You know, so then look at your presentence report. You had two juvenile cases. And then starting in 2015, you get – as an adult, you get disorderly conduct, criminal trespass, an auto theft, criminal damage to property, this burglary/robbery, another disorderly conduct, another criminal trespass, failure to return to lawful detention. And the theft is a misdemeanor. As the State points out 11 [contacts with the juvenile justice system]. So nine were after you assured [the juvenile trial court judge] that you weren’t going to do anything. So nine times, from my perspective, you broke that vow to him. And you stand here in front of me making the same vow. I’ve got to tell you, your credibility is not too good with me, because you have [a] pattern of not conforming yourself to the norms of society.
(Sent. Tr. pp. 23-24). Whitfield has received probation, deferments, and pre-
trial work release, but has violated the trial court’s gifts of leniency numerous
times. In fact, the record reflects that during pre-trial detention in the instant
case, Whitfield failed to report back to community corrections after leaving for
a job interview on June 15, 2017. We have frequently held that criminal history
and frequent contact with the criminal justice system reflects negatively on
one’s character. See, e.g., Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App.
2007) (concluding that although the defendant’s criminal history was not
aggravating “to a high degree,” it was still a poor reflection on his character).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1711-CR-2613 | March 23, 2018 Page 5 of 6 Even by pleading guilty to a Level 5 felony, Whitfield received a substantial
benefit already as he was facing a sentencing exposure of seventeen years.
[11] We are not persuaded by Whitfield’s argument that he “never took advantage
of the victim’s ‘feeble’ stature, or otherwise exerted his own ‘athletic build’ on
the victim by means of preying on the weak. Instead, it would appear that
Whitfield simply gave instructions to the victim, which the victim then
followed.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 8). This is merely an attempt to shift the blame
to where it does not belong: the victim. We cannot find anything redeeming
about Whitfield’s character, such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent
examples of good behavior, which could suggest a downward revision of his
sentence. Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). Accordingly,
based on Whitfield’s character and the nature of the offense, his aggravated
sentence was not inappropriate.
CONCLUSION [12] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court’s imposition of an
aggravated sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and
[13] Affirmed.
[14] May, J. and Mathias, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1711-CR-2613 | March 23, 2018 Page 6 of 6