Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-14 | August 11, 2015 Page 1 of 7

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Matthew D. Anglemeyer

Marion County Public Defender

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Jesse R. Drum

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Darius Altgilbers,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

August 11, 2015

Court of Appeals Cause No.

49A05-1501-CR-14

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

Cause No. 49G05-1306-MR-41317

The Honorable Grant Hawkins, 

Judge

Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-14 | August 11, 2015 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] Darius Altgilbers appeals his sentence for murder. We affirm.

Issue

[2] Altgilbers raises one issue, which we restate as whether his sentence is 

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

offender.

Facts

[3] On June 23, 2013, seventeen-year-old Altgilbers, Jamie Tooley, Crystal 

Hampton, Daniel Tandy, Christopher Rogers, and Joshua Lewis were together 

at Tooley and Hampton’s apartment in Indianapolis. The group needed money 

and discussed robbing someone. Altgilbers had a silver revolver, and Rogers 

had a black revolver. The group initially discussed robbing someone through 

Craigslist but abandoned that idea. They then decided to rob Hampton’s 

friend, David, and Hampton and Tooley went to David’s apartment. However, 

they also abandoned that plan. Early the next morning, Hampton and Tooley 

walked to a gas station where they met Bassirou Mahamadou, who agreed to 

give them a ride back to their apartment.

[4] During the ride, Tooley texted Altgilbers and a phone shared by Rogers and 

Lewis that they were getting a ride from someone they did not know and to “be 

ready.” Tr. p. 89. When they arrived back at Tooley and Hampton’s 

apartment, Hampton went inside. Only Tandy was in the apartment when 

Hampton arrived. Tooley stayed in Mahamadou’s vehicle and talked to him 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-14 | August 11, 2015 Page 3 of 7

for a few minutes. When she got out of the vehicle, Mahamadou rolled down 

his window, and Altgilbers grabbed Tooley from behind. Altgilbers moved 

Tooley out of the way, and she ran into the apartment. When she got to the 

apartment, she heard several gunshots.

[5] Altgilbers, Rogers, and Lewis then returned to the apartment. They were 

“[p]anicking.” Id. at 96. Altgilbers said that Rogers “kept shooting and so he 

said ‘f’ it and kept shooting too.” Id. at 197. Hampton asked them what they 

did, and Altgilbers said, “You knew we was going to rob” him. Id. at 198. 

Lewis told them, “why would you shoot him if you didn’t get anything and you 

all are stupid if you all still have the guns.” Id. at 97. Altgilbers told Tooley 

that he was sorry. They put the guns in a grocery bag and got rid of them. 

Either Altgilbers or Rogers said that the guns were “in the woods.” Id. at 198. 

[6] Mahamadou sustained several gunshot wounds, including one to his neck that 

resulted in his death. When the police arrived, Altgilbers said that they should 

“just lay down and wake up in the morning and it would be over.” Id. at 200. 

However, Tooley, Hampton, Tandy, and Lewis went outside. Tooley allowed 

the police to search her apartment, and they found a silver revolver cylinder in 

the apartment on the kitchen floor. The police later recovered a grocery bag 

containing two revolvers, one black and one silver, from woods behind the 

apartment building. The silver revolver was missing its cylinder, and the 

cylinder found in the apartment fit in the revolver. Altgilbers’s DNA was found 

on the silver revolver, and Rogers’s fingerprint was found on Mahamadou’s 

vehicle. An analysis of the bullets found in Mahamadou’s body showed that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-14 | August 11, 2015 Page 4 of 7

two of the bullets were fired by the black revolver. The silver revolver could not 

be eliminated as having fired the bullet that entered Mahamadou’s neck.

[7] The State charged Altgilbers with murder, Class A felony attempted robbery, 

and Class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery. A jury found Altgilbers 

guilty as charged. Because of double jeopardy concerns, the trial court 

sentenced Altgilbers only on the murder conviction. The trial court found that 

Altgilbers’s criminal history, “though extensive, [was] insubstantial.” Id. at

658. The trial court acknowledged some rehabilitation efforts while Altgilbers 

was incarcerated by attending classes or meetings. However, because the 

certificates were all signed by the same person within a short number of 

months, the trial court did not “know how much credit to give it.” Id. at 659. 

The trial court also noted that Altgilbers had not responded to prior 

rehabilitation attempts and opportunities, that he fled Lake County to avoid a 

warrant for his arrest, and that there was a significant degree of planning in the 

instant case. The trial court found that the aggravators outweighed the 

mitigators and sentenced Altgilbers to sixty-three years in the Department of 

Correction with four years suspended to probation. Altgilbers now appeals.

Analysis

[8] Altgilbers argues that his sixty-three-year sentence is inappropriate. Indiana 

Appellate Rule 7(B) permits us to revise a sentence authorized by statute if, 

after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find that the sentence is 

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

offender. Although Appellate Rule 7(B) does not require us to be “extremely” 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-14 | August 11, 2015 Page 5 of 7

deferential to a trial court’s sentencing decision, we still must give due 

consideration to that decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2007). We also understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial 

court brings to its sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a defendant bears 

the burden of persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is 

inappropriate.” Id.

[9] The principal role of Appellate Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to 

leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and 

those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a 

perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 

(Ind. 2008). We “should focus on the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather 

than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the 

sentence on any individual count.” Id. Whether a sentence is inappropriate 

ultimately turns on 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. Id. at 1224. 

[10] The nature of the offense is that Altgilbers and his friends decided to rob 

someone because they did not have any money. Although they considered 

other plans, ultimately, Tooley and Hampton obtained a ride from 

Mahamadou, and Tooley sent a text to Altgilbers and the others to “be ready.” 

Tr. p. 89. When they arrived, Altgilbers and Rogers shot Mahamadou. 

Altgilbers’s silver revolver could not be eliminated as the weapon that fired the 

bullet that killed Mahamadou. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-14 | August 11, 2015 Page 6 of 7

[11] Altgilbers argues that he was not the mastermind of the crime, that he “was 

hardly, if at all, a part of planning the robbery,” and that he didn’t suggest any 

potential victims. Appellant’s Br. p. 8. However, the record shows that 

Altgilbers was present for the planning, he had multiple chances to cease 

participation in the crime, and he discouraged the others from talking to the 

police after the offense.

[12] As for the character of the offender, seventeen-year-old Altgilbers has an 

extensive juvenile criminal history. In 2009, he was adjudicated delinquent for 

acts that would have been Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily 

injury and Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief. In 2010, he was 

adjudicated delinquent for an act that would have been Class A misdemeanor 

possession of marijuana. In 2012, he was adjudicated delinquent for an act that 

would have been Class A misdemeanor false informing. He failed to complete 

his community service and anger management counseling. He failed to comply 

with probation and, ultimately, was made a ward of the Department of 

Correction in 2012. In March 2013, a bench warrant was issued for Altgilbers 

for a probation violation. However, he ran away from home that month, went 

to Indianapolis, and committed the instant offense in June 2013. 

[13] Altgilbers reported that his step-father was physically abusive to him. He was 

expelled from high school in the tenth grade for fighting. A 2010 psychological 

evaluation reported that he had a depressive disorder, disruptive behavior 

disorder, a cannabis dependence, a reading disorder, and histrionic personality 

traits with antisocial features. The report noted that he had experienced severe 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-14 | August 11, 2015 Page 7 of 7

physical and emotional trauma as a result of being beaten by his stepfather for a 

three-year period. He began drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana at the age 

of thirteen and had also abused Xanax. 

[14] Altgilbers argues that he is “a traumatized young man who has . . . made poor 

choices under the duress of crushing emotional impediments.” Appellant’s Br. 

p. 11. He argues that he has tried to better himself by earning various 

certificates while in jail during his instant incarceration. He points out that both 

he and the State requested a sentence of fifty-five years, but the trial court 

imposed a sentence of sixty-three years. 

[15] We acknowledge Altgilbers’s difficult childhood and recent efforts to better 

himself. However, given Altgilbers’s juvenile criminal history, failure to take 

advantage of prior rehabilitative opportunities, and the senselessness of the 

instant offense, we cannot say that the sentence imposed by the trial court is 

inappropriate.

Conclusion

[16] The sixty-three-year sentence is not inappropriate. We affirm.

[17] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Bailey, concur.