Rogerick Demar Denham v. State of Indiana

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 4, 2020
• Docket: 19A-CR-2164
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED Mar 04 2020, 6:35 am

CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Kristin A. Mulholland Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Crown Point, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Courtney Staton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Rogerick Demar Denham, March 4, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-2164 v. Appeal from the Lake Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Diane R. Boswell, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 45G03-1705-F1-5

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary [1] Rogerick Demar Denham appeals the twenty-nine-year aggregate sentence that

was imposed following his conviction for aggravated battery, a Level 3 felony,

and the habitual offender enhancement. Denham claims that the sentence was

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2164 | March 4, 2020 Page 1 of 9 inappropriate in accordance with Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) because the trial

court failed to properly consider his untreated mental illness, his cooperation

with the State in obtaining the conviction of a fellow inmate, and his remorse

for committing the offenses, which are factors that Denham claims reflect

positively on his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] A.D. and Denham were married and living together. On April 7, 2017, A.D.

told Denham that she did not think their marriage was working. In response,

Denham began to repeatedly stab A.D. in her back and legs with a pocketknife.

At some point, Denham left the room and A.D. called the police. When

Denham returned, he noticed that A.D. had moved her cell phone. While

Denham was searching for the phone, A.D. tried unsuccessfully to grab the

knife away from him. Denham started swinging the knife, sliced A.D.’s hands,

and continued to stab A.D. “all over her body.” Appendix Vol. II at 57.

[4] When the police officers arrived, they saw Denham fleeing the residence. The

officers entered the house and heard A.D. crying out in pain and saw that she

was covered in an “extreme” amount of blood. Id. Although barely able to

speak, A.D. told the officers that her husband had tried to kill her. A.D.

sustained over twenty-five wounds including cuts to her left hand that required

nearly forty stitches and reconstructive surgery.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2164 | March 4, 2020 Page 2 of 9 [5] Denham was subsequently arrested and charged with attempted murder,

aggravated battery, domestic battery by means of a deadly weapon, and

domestic battery resulting in serious bodily injury. The State also alleged that

Denham was an habitual offender. Denham and the State negotiated a plea

agreement on July 15, 2019, whereby Denham agreed to plead guilty to

aggravated battery as a Level 3 felony and to being an habitual offender. The

remaining charges were dismissed, along with three other unrelated charges.

[6] The parties agreed to argue the sentence to the trial court with a cap of fourteen

years on the habitual offender count. The trial court accepted the plea

agreement, and A.D. provided a victim impact statement at the August 15,

2019 sentencing hearing. A.D. explained that Denham had mocked and

ridiculed her during the episode, telling her that she was “going to die” and that

there was nothing she could do to stop him. Transcript Vol. II at 26. A.D. stated

that she had suffered “physically, mentally, financially, [and] emotionally”

from the attack and that she was “damaged.” Id. at 29.

[7] The trial court sentenced Denham to fifteen years of incarceration for

aggravated battery and to fourteen years on the habitual offender count, for an

aggregate sentence of twenty-nine years. Denham now appeals.

Discussion and Decision I. Standard of Review

[8] In accordance with App. R. 7(B), we “may revise a sentence authorized by

statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the [c]ourt finds

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2164 | March 4, 2020 Page 3 of 9 that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the

character of the offender.” “The principal role of a Rule 7(B) review ‘should be

to attempt to leaven the outliers . . . but not to achieve a perceived “correct”

result in each case.’” Dilts v. State, 80 N.E.3d 182, 188 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017)

(quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008)), trans. denied.

[9] We independently examine the nature of Denham’s offense and his character

under App. R. 7(B) with substantial deference to the trial court’s sentence.

Satterfield v, State, 33 N.E.3d 344, 355 (Ind. 2015). “In conducting our review,

we do not look to see whether the defendant’s sentence is appropriate or if

another sentence might be more appropriate; rather, the test is whether the

sentence is ‘inappropriate.’” Barker v. State, 994 N.E.2d 306, 315 (Ind. Ct. App.

2013), trans. denied. Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately depends

upon “the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage

done to others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.”

Dilts, 80 N.E.3d at 188-89. Denham bears the burden of persuading us that his

aggregate twenty-nine-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the

offense and his character. Id. at 188.

[10] We note that the “advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has

selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Connor v. State,

58 N.E.3d 215, 220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). The sentencing range for Level 3

felony aggravated battery is between three and sixteen years, with an advisory

sentence of nine years. Ind. Code. § 35-50-2-5(b). The sentencing range for the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2164 | March 4, 2020 Page 4 of 9 habitual offender enhancement is between six and twenty years. I.C. § 35-50-2-

8(i)(1).

II. Sentencing Claims A. Nature of the Offense

[11] We initially observe that Denham does not advance an argument that his

sentence was inappropriate under the “nature of the offense” prong of App. R.

7(B). In at least one instance, this court has determined that a defendant on

appeal must challenge the appropriateness of a criminal sentence under both the

character of the offender and the nature of the offense aspects of App. R. 7(B),

or the issue may be waived. Specifically, in Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621

(Ind. Ct. App. 2008), the defendant failed to present a cogent argument that his

sentence was inappropriate in light of his character. Although it was

determined that the defendant arguably waived his challenge as to the

inappropriateness of his sentence, we nonetheless exercised our authority to

review the sentence. Id. at 633. In a more recent case, it was determined that

this type of waiver does not apply to App. R. 7(B) sentence review. In Connor,

the defendant challenged the appropriateness of his sentence only with regard to

his character. In summarizing sentence review under both prongs of App. R.

7(B), the Connor court determined that there is no requirement that an appellant

must bear the burden of establishing both prongs of the inquiry under the rule.

More particularly, it was determined:

[A]lthough the rule does state that we may revise a sentence we find to be inappropriate ‘in light of the nature of the offense and

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2164 | March 4, 2020 Page 5 of 9 the character of the offender,’ . . . we view that as a statement that we as the reviewing court must consider both of those prongs in our assessment, and not as a requirement that the defendant must necessarily prove each of those prongs render his sentence inappropriate . . . . In short, 7(B) review is a holistic approach, focusing on the forest . . . rather than the trees. . . .

58 N.E.3d at 218-19 (emphases in original) (internal citations omitted). We

adhere to the rationale espoused in Connor and review Denham’s sentence

without finding that his argument only as to the “character of the offender”

prong in App. R. 7(B) resulted in waiver.

[12] The evidence in this case establishes that the crime was incredibly violent.

Denham stabbed A.D. more than twenty-five times, told her that she was going

to die, and mocked her for fearing for her life. When A.D. attempted to grab

the pocketknife from Denham’s hand, the tendons in her left hand were

severed. Denham continued to stab her “all over” while whispering, “I’m

going to kill you, b***h.” Transcript Vol. II at 28. Denham then fled and left

A.D. to suffer from the multiple wounds that he had inflicted.

[13] When the police arrived, the officers saw that A.D. was covered in blood.

Although barely able to speak, A.D. related to the officers that her husband had

tried to kill her. A.D. had to be resuscitated twice due to the severity of her

injuries and believed that she lived through the ordeal only “by the grace of

God.” Transcript Vol. II at 29. A.D. required multiple stitches and surgery as a

result of her wounds. The nature of this offense calls for nothing less than an

aggravated sentence.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2164 | March 4, 2020 Page 6 of 9 B. Character of the Offender

[14] Denham contends that the sentence was inappropriate in light of his character.

Specifically, Denham asserts that his mother’s testimony at the sentencing

hearing regarding his untreated mental illness, his cooperation with law

enforcement, his strides to improve himself, and his remorse, all reflect

positively on his character and warranted a lesser sentence.

[15] When considering the character of the offender, one relevant fact is the

defendant’s criminal history.” Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. Ct. App.

2013) (citing Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)).

“The significance of a criminal history in assessing a defendant’s character and

an appropriate sentence varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of

prior offenses in relation to the current offense.” Rutherford, 866 N.E.2d at 875.

[16] Denham’s criminal history reflects that he is a repeat and violent offender. At

the time of sentencing, Denham was thirty-four years old and had already

accumulated one juvenile adjudication, three misdemeanor convictions, and

four felony convictions. Significantly, Denham had been convicted of Class A

felony voluntary manslaughter with a deadly weapon in 2005. As a result of

that conviction, Denham was sentenced to the Indiana Department of

Correction for twenty years. Following his release from incarceration, he

continued to commit violent crimes. In October 2016, Denham was convicted

of Level 6 felony domestic battery for battering A.D.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2164 | March 4, 2020 Page 7 of 9 [17] In addition to his prior offenses, Defendant was out on bond in three separate

cause numbers when he committed the instant offense. Denham was also

serving a probationary sentence from Hendricks County for residential

burglary. The evidence also showed that Denham had been a member of a

violent gang until he was twenty-five years old. The gravity, nature, and

number of prior violent offenses in Denham’s criminal history, along with his

gang involvement, reflect poorly on his character.

[18] Nonetheless, Denham asserts that he is “working to improve himself” because

he had participated in a life skills program while incarcerated. Appellant’s Brief

at 10. Denham’s completion of a single program of that nature does not

warrant a lesser sentence. Similarly, Denham’s willingness to act as a State’s

witness against a fellow inmate does not begin to excuse the fact that he brutally

stabbed his wife more than twenty-five times.

[19] Denham also claims that his sentence must be revised because his “previously

untreated mental illness [was not] taken into account when assessing his

character.” Id. Although Denham’s mother testified that her son had been

diagnosed with bipolar disorder when he was younger, there is nothing in the

record other than her testimony to support that claim. Moreover, Denham did

not present evidence establishing that his mental illness had a nexus to his

commission of this aggravated battery. See Steinberg v. State, 941 N.E.2d 515,

524 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (stating that for mental illness to be a significant

mitigating factor, “there must be a nexus” between the mental illness and the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2164 | March 4, 2020 Page 8 of 9 crimes at issue), trans. denied. Even so, the trial court did find that Denham’s

mental health was a somewhat mitigating factor before pronouncing sentence.

[20] Finally, Defendant argues that his remorse for his actions reflects positively on

his character. Although Denham expressed some remorse for his actions, he

attempted to minimize his culpability by relying on his anxiety and depression,

his embarrassment from working at McDonalds, and the fear of losing his

relationship with his wife.

[21] In sum, Denham has failed to show that his twenty-nine-year sentence is

inappropriate.

[22] Judgment affirmed.

Robb, J. and Bradford, C.J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2164 | March 4, 2020 Page 9 of 9