Logan M. Osborn v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 24, 2020
• Docket: 19A-CR-3071
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 24 2020, 8:51 am

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 Brandon E. Murphy Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Cannon Bruns & Murphy Attorney General of Indiana Muncie, Indiana Josiah Swinney Deputy Attorney General

Samuel J. Sendrow Certified Legal Intern Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Logan Osborn, August 24, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-3071 v. Appeal from the Jay Circuit Court The Honorable Brian D. State of Indiana, Hutchison, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No. 38C01-1901-F5-6

Najam, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-3071 | August 24, 2020 Page 1 of 5 Statement of the Case [1] Logan Osborn appeals his sentence after he pleaded guilty to two counts of

battery against a public safety official, as Level 6 felonies. Osborn raises one

issue for our review, namely, whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of

the nature of the offenses and his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] On January 6, 2019, Osborn, who was an inmate at the Jay County Security

Center, broke the glass out of the light in his cell. As a result, officers escorted

Osborn to another cell and asked him to remove his clothing. Osborn did not

comply, and he became “extremely combative.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 8.

Corrections Officers Kenisha Lehman and Dylan Limbert then entered

Osborn’s cell and attempted to remove his clothing. Osborn started “punching

and kicking and pulling away[.]” Id. Osborn punched Officer Limbert “on the

right side of the face multiple times,” and he kicked Officer Lehman in the head

“several times.” Id. After “several minutes of fighting,” officers were able to

remove Osborn’s clothing and exit his cell. Id.

[4] The State charged Osborn with two counts of battery against a public safety

official, as Level 5 felonies. Thereafter, Osborn pleaded guilty to two counts of

battery against a public safety official, as Level 6 felonies. The court accepted

Osborn’s guilty plea and entered judgment of conviction accordingly. At a

sentencing hearing, the court identified as aggravating factors Osborn’s criminal

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-3071 | August 24, 2020 Page 2 of 5 history and the fact that Osborn committed the instant offenses while

incarcerated for a prior offense. The court did not identify any mitigators.

Accordingly, the court sentenced Osborn to concurrent terms of two years on

each count. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [5] Osborn contends that his aggregate two-year sentence is inappropriate in light

of the nature of the offenses and his character. However, the entirety of

Osborn’s argument on appeal is as follows:

At the time of sentencing, Logan Osborn was just twenty-two years old, but had previously earned his GED. Osborn was already scheduled to be confined for [a] Madison County conviction until March of 2022. This Court could and should have imposed an eighteen (18) month executed and aggravated sentence which took into account Osborn’s prior criminal history while recognizing his age and rehabilitative potential. Given Osborn’s age and the fact that he is already serving an executed sentence until March of 2022, it was inappropriate to sentence Mr. Osborn to two (2) years executed in the Department of Corrections.

Appellant’s Br. at 8 (internal citations omitted). As such, Osborn’s argument is

that his executed sentence is inappropriate only in light of his character.

[6] However, that argument, by itself, is not sufficient to invoke this Court’s

authority to revise a sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). As this Court

has previously explained, revision of a sentence under Rule 7(B) “requires the

appellant to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-3071 | August 24, 2020 Page 3 of 5 of the offense and the character of the offender.” Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.2d

839, 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original),

trans. denied. The language of that rule plainly requires “the appellant to

demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate in light of both the nature of the

offenses and his character.” Id. (quotation marks omitted, emphasis in

original). Because Osborn’s argument on appeal does not address his sentence

in relation to the nature of the offenses, he has waived our review of the

appropriateness of his sentence. See id.

[7] Waiver notwithstanding, Osborn has failed to persuade us that his two-year

executed sentence is inappropriate. Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows

trial courts to tailor an appropriate sentence to the circumstances presented, and

the trial court’s judgment “should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell,

895 N.E.2d at 1222. Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate 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 facts that come to light

in a given case.” Id. at 1224. The question is not whether another sentence is

more appropriate, but rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.

King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to the trial

court “prevail[s] unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a

positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by restraint,

regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant’s character (such as substantial

virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29

N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-3071 | August 24, 2020 Page 4 of 5 [8] The sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is six months to two and one-half

years, with an advisory sentence of one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). Here,

the court identified as aggravating factors Osborn’s criminal history and the fact

that he committed the instant offense while incarcerated for a prior offense.

The court did not identify any mitigating factors. Accordingly, the court

imposed an enhanced sentence of two years on each count, to run concurrently.

[9] Here, Osborn has not shown that his sentence is inappropriate. With respect to

the nature of the offenses, Osborn punched Officer Limbert in the face multiple

times, and he kicked Officer Lehman in the head several times. Indeed, he

fought the two officers, who were attempting to perform their duties, for

“several minutes.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 8. As to his character, at only

twenty-two years old, Osborn has a criminal history that includes three juvenile

adjudications, three felony convictions, and one misdemeanor conviction.

Further, Osborn committed the instant offense while incarcerated for a prior

offense. And Osborn has been given several opportunities to avoid

incarceration in the past through alternative sentences, but he continues to

commit crimes. We cannot say that Osborn’s sentence is inappropriate in light

of the nature of the offenses and his character. We therefore affirm Osborn’s

sentence.

[10] Affirmed.

Bradford, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-3071 | August 24, 2020 Page 5 of 5