Tyron R.E. White v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 10, 2016
• Docket: 02A05-1511-CR-1872
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 10 2016, 8:45 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Zachary A. Witte Gregory F. Zoeller Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Justin F. Roebel Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Tyron R. E. White, June 10, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 02A05-1511-CR-1872 v. Appeal from the Allen Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D04-1504-F6-284

Bradford, Judge.

Case Summary

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1511-CR-1872 | June 10, 2016 Page 1 of 5 [1] On Mach 30, 2015, Fort Wayne Police Officer P. Bartrom went to Appellant-

Defendant Tyron White’s residence to serve a warrant. During the execution of

this warrant, White fled from officers which led to Bartrom being injured.

Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (“the State”) subsequently charged White

with Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement. White pled guilty and received a

two-and-a-half-year sentence. On appeal, White claims that his sentence was

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

Facts and Procedural History [2] On March 30, 2015, Fort Wayne Police Officer Bartrom went to White’s

residence to serve an arrest warrant. Officer Bartrom approached the rear of the

house while another officer went to the front. After hearing some commotion

from inside, Officer Bartrom saw White open the back door at which point

Officer Bartrom ordered him to stop. White attempted to flee and, as Officer

Bartrom attempted to follow him through the doorway, White shut the door,

causing Officer Bartrom’s right arm to break through one of the window panes

in the center of the door. Officer Bartrom suffered two large cuts to his right

forearm approximately two inches in length which began “rapidly bleeding.”

Appellant’s App. 22.

[3] On April 3, 2015, White was charged with Level 6 felony resisting law

enforcement, to which he pled guilty. On October 23, 2015, White was

sentenced to two-and-a-half years with one-and-a-half years executed and the

remaining year suspended to probation.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1511-CR-1872 | June 10, 2016 Page 2 of 5 Discussion and Decision [4] White contends that his two-and-a-half-year sentence is inappropriate in light of

the nature of his offense and his character. “Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)

empowers us to independently review and revise sentences authorized by

statute if, after due consideration, we find the trial court’s decision

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

offender.” Anderson v. State, 989 N.E.2d 823, 827 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans.

denied. “An appellant bears the burden of showing both prongs of the inquiry

favor revision of [his] sentence.” Id. (citing Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073,

1080 (Ind. 2006)). “We must give ‘deference to a trial court’s sentencing

decision, both because Rule 7(B) requires us to give due consideration to that

decision and because we understand and recognize the unique perspective a

trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.’” Gil v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1231,

1237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Trainor v. State, 950 N.E.2d 352, 355-56

(Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.).

[5] The nature of White’s offense does little to justify a revision of his sentence.

White intentionally slammed a door on Officer Bartrom, did so with enough

force that Bartrom’s arm broke through a window pane, and “continued to

push the door until it was shut with [Officer Bartrom’s] arm still stuck through

the window.” Appellant’s App. p. 77. The resulting injury was not minor and

far exceeded what was necessary to establish the “bodily injury” element of the

offense. Officer Bartrom received two large cuts which were “rapidly bleeding”

and left severe scars which were clearly visible six months later. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1511-CR-1872 | June 10, 2016 Page 3 of 5 [6] White’s character, as evidenced by his criminal history, also justifies his

enhanced sentence. “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 v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). White was just

twenty years old at the time of sentencing and had already accrued five juvenile

delinquency adjudications, three of which would have been felonies if

committed by an adult, including Class B felony arson. The remaining

adjudications were for battery and resisting law enforcement. Since reaching

adulthood, White has been convicted of misdemeanor domestic battery and

misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. White was released on bond for the

battery case when he committed the instant offense, and proceeded to commit

the misdemeanor resisting law enforcement while out on bond for the instant

offense. The current conviction is White’s fourth for resisting law enforcement

and shows that previous efforts at rehabilitation and leniency have done

nothing to reform his behavior. White argues that he was a contributing

member of society working two jobs and taking classes at IVY Tech. However,

the trial court noted that White quit both jobs seven months prior to the

sentencing hearing.

[7] We reiterate that the question under Appellate Rule 7(B) analysis is “not

whether another sentence is more appropriate” but “whether the sentence

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

2008). Based on White’s extensive criminal history in a relatively short period

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1511-CR-1872 | June 10, 2016 Page 4 of 5 of time and the severity of Officer Bartrom’s injuries, we cannot say that

White’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense or his

character.

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

Bailey, J., and Altice, concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1511-CR-1872 | June 10, 2016 Page 5 of 5