Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

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:

DANIEL J. MOORE GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Laszynski & Moore Attorney General of Indiana

Lafayette, Indiana

RICHARD C. WEBSTER

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

DEANDREW RUSSELL, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 79A04-1308-CR-389

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE TIPPECANOE SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Thomas H. Busch, Judge

Cause No. 79D02-1108-FC-41

May 28, 2014

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BAILEY, Judge
2

Case Summary

Deandrew Russell (“Russell”) was tried in absentia and convicted of Criminal 

Confinement, as a Class C felony,1and Residential Entry, as a Class D felony.2 He appeals, 

challenging his eight-year sentence for Criminal Confinement.3 He presents the sole issue of 

whether that sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

On July 29, 2011, Russell kicked in the door of the Lafayette, Indiana apartment 

shared by Jessica Dayhuff (“Dayhuff”) and Bianca Sharp (“Sharp”). Russell, his sister, and a 

male companion burst in uninvited. Russell began to yell at Dayhuff and Sharp, accusing 

them of involvement in his cousin’s murder earlier that evening and demanding answers to 

his questions. Dayhuff, too frightened to speak, remained silent. Sharp responded that she 

and Dayhuff were not involved, and she tried to explain to Russell that the perpetrators had 

already been arrested. 

Unappeased, Russell kicked Dayhuff in the face. He ordered his sister to strike 

Dayhuff and she began to do so. Russell and the other male joined in beating Dayhuff, who 

curled into a ball on the sofa in an attempt to avoid some of the blows. The beating 

continued for “probably five to seven minutes.” (Tr. 31.) Dayhuff sustained multiple facial 

fractures, affecting the nasal bone and the left maxillary bone. She also sustained multiple 

contusions.

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3.

2

I.C. § 35-43-2-1.5.

3 Russell does not challenge his concurrent three-year sentence for Residential Entry.
3

The trio left the apartment, after Russell admonished Dayhuff and Sharp to “watch 

their backs” because they would be killed. (Tr. 71.) The women obtained a cell phone from 

a neighbor and summoned police and ambulance assistance.

Dayhuff was able to identify Russell as one of her attackers. He was charged with 

Criminal Confinement, as a Class B felony, Residential Entry, as a Class D felony, and 

Battery, as a Class A misdemeanor. Russell did not appear for trial and was tried in absentia. 

The jury found him guilty of Criminal Confinement, as a Class C felony, and guilty of the 

other counts as charged. However, the trial court did not enter a judgment of conviction 

upon the battery count. 

Russell was sentenced to eight years for the Class C felony conviction and three years 

for the Class D felony conviction, to be served concurrently. Six years were to be served in 

the Indiana Department of Correction and two years in community corrections. This appeal 

ensued. 

Discussion and Decision

A person who commits a Class C felony has a sentencing range of between two and 

eight years, with the advisory term being four years. I.C. § 35-50-2-6. As such, Russell 

received a maximum sentence. When imposing this sentence, the trial court considered 

Russell’s lengthy history of misdemeanor convictions, his violation of probation, his flight 

while on pre-trial release, the brutality of the crime, and his history of employment and 

commitment to his family.
4

The authority granted to this Court by Article 7, § 6 of the Indiana Constitution 

permitting appellate review and revision of criminal sentences is implemented through 

Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides: “The Court may revise a sentence authorized by 

statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds that the 

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

offender.” In performing our review, we assess “the culpability of the defendant, the severity 

of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a 

given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). The principal role of 

such review is to attempt to leaven the outliers. Id. at 1225. A defendant ‘“must persuade 

the appellate court that his or her sentence has met th[e] inappropriateness standard of 

review.”’ Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007) (quoting Childress v. State, 

848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)). 

The nature of Russell’s offense is that he confined Dayhuff on the sofa of her 

apartment while physically attacking her. Russell kicked Dayhuff in the face and repeatedly 

struck her. He instigated others to join in the attack. Ultimately, Dayhuff sustained multiple 

facial fractures and contusions. 

Russell has a juvenile adjudication for an act that would be battery if committed by an 

adult. He also has a lengthy history of misdemeanors. On numerous occasions, he has failed 

to appear for court proceedings. He has had six petitions to revoke probation filed, with one 

revocation. When he was released to await trial in this case, he fled to Arkansas. He was 

arrested in that state, after having been tried in absentia in Indiana. 
5

Having reviewed the matter, we conclude that the trial court did not impose an 

inappropriate sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B), and the sentence does not warrant 

appellate revision. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the sentence imposed by the trial 

court.

Conclusion

Russell’s eight-year sentence, with two years to be served in community corrections, is 

not inappropriate.

Affirmed.

KIRSCH, J., and MAY, J., concur.