Case Title: Bushhorn v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 40S01-1206-CR-309

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2012-07-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
R. Patrick Magrath 
 
 
 
 
 
Gregory F. Zoeller 
Madison, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney General of Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stephen R. Creason 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Joseph Y. Ho 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deputies Attorney General 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 40S01-1206-CR-309 
 
 
ROGER L. BUSHHORN, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant (Defendant below), 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF INDIANA,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Plaintiff below). 
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Jennings Circuit Court 
No. 40C01-1001-FA-10 
The Honorable Jon W. Webster, Judge 
  
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 40A01-1107-CR-315 
_________________________________ 
 
July 26, 2012 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
Roger Bushhorn coordinated an escape attempt from the Jennings County jail with his 
cellmate, James Smith, and another inmate, Ryan Renfroe.  They were armed with sharpened 
pieces of metal, or “shanks,” that the men had fashioned from a metal hanger in preparation for 
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
Jul 26 2012, 11:17 am
2 
 
the escape attempt.   Shortly after midnight, Bushhorn asked 54-year-old jail officer Vicki Day to 
let him out of the holding cell so he could use the restroom, and Day allowed Bushhorn to exit.  
Smith asked to leave the cell too, but his request was denied.  As Day was shutting the cell door, 
Smith forced it open and forced Day to the floor.  Bushhorn took the keys from the officer, used 
them to open Renfroe’s cell and handed him one of the shanks.  Then Bushhorn handcuffed the 
officer and took her chemical agent container.  At Smith’s direction, Bushhorn used the officer’s 
radio to tell the jail controller to open the door into another area of the jail or Smith would kill 
the officer.  The door did not open, and Smith began stabbing Day.  When two other jail officers, 
Shawn McDaniel and 67-year-old Walter Peace, entered the area, Bushhorn sprayed the 
chemical agent at them and handcuffed them.  At that point, numerous police officers entered the 
area and took the three inmates into custody.   
 
 
Bushhorn was charged with three counts of kidnapping (class A felonies), three counts of 
criminal confinement while armed with a deadly weapon and resulting in serious bodily injury 
(class B felonies), one count of attempted escape while armed with a deadly weapon (a class B 
felony), one count of attempted escape resulting in bodily injury to the officers (a class B 
felony), and three counts of battery while armed with a deadly weapon and resulting in serious 
bodily injury (class C felonies). 
 
 
Bushhorn pled guilty to kidnapping officer Day, the confinement charges relating of 
officers Peace and McDaniel, and attempted escape.  This was an open plea, so sentencing was 
left to the trial court.  The trial court imposed an enhanced 35-year sentence (with three years 
suspended) for the kidnapping, and minimum 6-year sentences for the four class B felonies.  The 
3 
 
trial court ordered the kidnapping sentence and the two confinement sentences to be served 
consecutive to each other, and the attempted escape sentence to be served concurrently with the 
other sentences.  Thus, the aggregate sentence was forty-seven years with three years suspended.   
 
 
As aggravating factors, the trial court identified: Bushhorn’s criminal history (including  
possession of alcohol by a minor, three juvenile adjudications for theft-related offenses he 
committed while a teenager, and the two 2009 theft-related felonies for which he had been 
serving his sentence during the attempted escape); the planned nature of the escape (including 
preparing the shanks and learning the routine of jail staff); the selection of the female officer as 
the first target; Bushhorn’s several opportunities to break off the escape, which he did not take;  
and other circumstances of the events.  As mitigating factors, the trial court noted Bushhorn’s 
guilty plea; his GED certificate; his remorse (he had apologized in person and by letter to the jail 
officers); and his relatively young age (he was 20 at the time of the attempted escape).   
 
 
Bushhorn appealed, arguing that a substantial portion of the aggravating factors relied 
upon by the trial court were not adequately supported by the record, and that imposition of an 
aggravated kidnapping sentence plus consecutive sentencing on other counts was an abuse of the 
trial court’s discretion.  In addition, he argued that the aggregate sentence was inappropriate in 
light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.  See Appellate Rule 7(B). 
 
 
Citing that rule, the Court of Appeals concluded that Bushhorn had met his burden of 
establishing that the sentence was inappropriate, and it revised the sentence so that the four class 
B felonies were concurrent with the thirty-five year kidnapping sentence, for an aggregate 
4 
 
sentence of thirty-five years.  Because of that resolution, the Court of Appeals did not decide 
whether the trial court had abused its discretion.  Bushhorn v. State, No. 40A01-1107-CR-315, 
slip op. (Ind. App. Feb. 16, 2012).   
 
 
We granted the State’s petition to transfer jurisdiction to this Court and heard oral 
argument.  Having reviewed the matter, our collective judgment is that the trial court’s sentence 
is not inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B) and there was no abuse of discretion.  See 
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222-1225 (Ind. 2008) (discussing appellate review of 
sentencing and claims of abuse of discretion in sentencing under the current sentencing scheme); 
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490-91 (Ind. 2007) (discussing appellate review of 
sentences under the current sentencing scheme); (Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852, 856-857 (Ind. 
2003) (discussing the adoption of Appellate Rule 7(B)’s present language and noting that 
enhanced and consecutive sentences can be appropriate when the same offense is committed 
against two victims).   
 
 
Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court and summarily affirm the 
decision of the Court of Appeals in all other respects.  See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A). 
 
Dickson, C.J., and Rucker, David, and Massa, JJ., concur. 
Sullivan, J., would deny transfer.