Zack Hitchings v. State of Indiana

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 31, 2014
• Docket: 49A02-1303-CR-207
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Mar 31 2014, 10:27 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

PATRICIA CARESS MCMATH GREGORY F. ZOELLER Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana JAMES B. MARTIN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

ZACK HITCHINGS, ) ) Appellant-Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 49A02-1303-CR-207 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Amy J. Barbar, Magistrate Cause No. 49G02-1208-PC-57778

March 31, 2014

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

KIRSCH, Judge Zach Hitchings appeals his eight-year sentence for robbery as a Class C felony1

contending that it was inappropriate. We affirm.

Hitchings pleaded guilty to robbing the Teachers Credit Union in Indianapolis, the

second time he has been convicted of robbing this institution. He has an extensive

criminal history, including twenty-two prior arrests, five prior misdemeanor convictions,

and ten prior felony convictions. This is the seventh time that Hitchens has been arrested

for bank robbery, and the fourth time he has been convicted. In the remaining three bank

robbery cases, the charges were dismissed due to his plea agreements in other cases.

During his ten prior sentences in the Department of Correction, Hitchings received

multiple official misconduct reports.

We “may exercise our authority under Appellate Rule 7(B) to revise a sentence

that we conclude is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of

the offender.” Hope v. State, 834 N.E.2d 713, 718 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (emphasis

added). The defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met

this inappropriateness standard of review. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080

(Ind. 2006). Hitchings has failed to meet this standard. Assuming without deciding that

the nature of his offense was not extraordinary, his character as revealed by his extensive

criminal history is, and his eight-year sentence is not inappropriate.

Affirmed.

MAY, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.

1 See Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1.