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:

JUNE E. BULES GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Plymouth, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

ERIC P. BABBS

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

JOHN BROOKE, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 75A05-1106-CR-297

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE STARKE CIRCUIT COURT

The Honorable Kim Hall, Judge

Cause No. 75C01-1002-FC-6

April 17, 2012

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CRONE, Judge
2

Case Summary

John Brooke and his girlfriend harbored a wanted fugitive in their home and learned 

that the authorities were on his trail. The trio and one of Brooke’s friends concocted a plan 

to use homemade explosives and Brooke’s firearms against any authorities who came to 

arrest the fugitive, after which they would simultaneously rob two banks and flee to Canada. 

Brooke was at work when his friend notified him that police officers had arrived to arrest the 

fugitive. Brooke left work and parked his truck a block away from his home. Equipped with 

a reinforced bulletproof vest, a handgun, and a semiautomatic assault rifle, he advanced 

toward one of the officers stationed near his home. Another officersaw Brooke approaching 

and ordered him to drop his rifle. Brooke did not comply, so the officers tackled and 

disarmed him, cuffed his hands behind his back, and placed him in a police car.

The fugitive inside Brooke’s home fired at the officers with an automatic rifle, and the 

officers returned fire. During the melee, Brooke managed to get his hands in front of him, 

escaped from the police car, and ran into his backyard. He returned with one of his dogs in 

his arms and asked the officers not to shoot. An officer took the dog and again placed 

Brooke in custody. The standoff ended after a SWAT team flushed the fugitive from

Brooke’s home with tear gas. Inside the home, police found over a dozen Molotov cocktails, 

numerous firearms and ammunition, a pipe bomb attached to a propane tank, and a notepad 

with plans for the breakout and bank robberies.

The State charged Brooke with conspiracy to commit armed robbery, intimidation, 

possession/manufacturing of a destructive device (a Molotov cocktail), possession of a 
3

destructive device (a pipe bomb), resisting law enforcement, unlawful use of body armor, and 

assisting a criminal. A jury found him guilty on all counts except the count relating to the 

pipe bomb. The trial court sentenced Brooke to twenty-two years of imprisonment. On 

appeal, Brooke challenges his conspiracy conviction and his sentence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

The facts most favorable to the jury’s verdict are that around the beginning of 

February 2010, Michael Drogosz called Brooke, a childhood friend, and asked for a place to 

stay. Brooke drove to Chicago to pick up Drogosz, and they returned to the home that 

Brooke shared with his girlfriend Kimberly Hitchens in Knox, Indiana. Drogosz stayed with 

Brooke and Hitchens for a couple weeks. At some point, Brooke learned that Drogosz was 

wanted on an Illinois burglary warrant and that law enforcement authorities were closing in.

During the Valentine’s Day weekend, Drogosz, Brooke, Hitchens, and James Reed, 

another friend who was staying with Brooke, devised a plan to escape if police officers came 

to arrest Drogosz. Brooke and Drogosz wrote and sketched out parts of the plan on a 

notepad. Brooke was a gun enthusiast and had numerous firearms and thousands of rounds 

of ammunition in his home, as well as some bulletproof vests that had been reinforced with 

steel plates. If Brooke was away from the house when the officers arrived, Reed would send 

him a “911” text, and he would park his truck at the end of the street and shoot the officers 

with a sniper rifle. Homemade Molotov cocktails would also be used to repel the officers. 

After the foursome escaped, they would simultaneously rob two local banks at gunpoint and 

use the money to flee to Canada. At Brooke’s request, Hitchens and Reed purchased some 
4

diesel fuel and dish soap to make the Molotov cocktails, as well as two propane tanks and a 

first-aid kit. Brooke and Reed made over a dozen Molotov cocktails using diesel fuel, dish 

soap, and canning jars.

1

 A pipe bomb and some screws and bolts were taped to one of the 

propane tanks.

On Monday, February 15, 2010, the Starke County Sheriff’s Department received a 

request from Illinois authorities to arrest Drogosz on the outstanding warrant. The 

department had received a tip that Drogosz was staying at Brooke’s house, so Deputies Don 

Ferguson and Bill Dulin went there to arrest him. Brooke was at work, and Hitchens was 

inside the house with Drogosz and Reed. Deputy Ferguson knocked on the front door, and 

Deputy Dulin went to the back of the house. Hitchens answered the door and initially denied 

that Drogosz was there, but eventually she admitted that he was and that there were weapons 

inside the house. Deputy Ferguson escorted Hitchens to his police car and called for backup. 

Reed sent Brooke the “911” text and called to let him know that the police had arrived.

Detective Kenny Pfost, Deputy Todd Keen, and Sergeant Fred Baker responded to 

Deputy Ferguson’s request for backup. Deputy Ferguson used a loudspeaker to ask Drogosz 

 

1

 According to ATF agent Katherine Newby,

The functioning of a Molotov cocktail is that you light the wick, throw it. The 

Molotov cocktail is necessarily in a frangible container, so you throw it against a hard object, 

such as a brick wall, concrete wall, something like that. It breaks the container. It spreads the 

flammable liquid. And you have lit the wick prior to throwing of it [sic], and it ignites all of 

the flammable liquid. A thickener [such as dish soap] would make it stick to whatever surface 

you were trying to get started on fire.

Tr. at 434.
5

to surrender. Reed walked out the front door and was taken into custody. Deputy Ferguson 

then telephoned Drogosz and attempted to negotiate his surrender.

Meanwhile, Brooke drove into his neighborhood and saw several police vehicles 

parked near his home. He parked his truck a block away and donned a reinforced bulletproof 

vest. He then armed himself with a loaded .50 caliber handgun, a loaded semiautomatic 

assault rifle (with two magazines taped together military-style to facilitate rapid reloading), 

and extra ammunition and walked through a wooded area toward his home.

During a break in the negotiations, Deputy Ferguson saw Brooke approach Sergeant 

Baker, who was stationed behind one of the police vehicles. Deputy Ferguson alerted 

Sergeant Baker, and both men ordered Brooke to drop his rifle and hit the ground. Brooke 

did not comply and told the officers that they “needed to get the f**k off of his property.” 

Tr. at 59.2 Sergeant Baker knocked the rifle out of Brooke’s hands and struggled to subdue 

Brooke, who kept reaching inside his jacket pocket. Detective Pfost cuffed Brooke’s hands 

behind his back and reached into his pocket, where he found the handgun. Brooke was taken 

into custody and placed in a police car.

 

2

 In preparing the transcript and exhibits, the court reporter disregarded several important 

requirements of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellate Rule 28(A)(7) provides that the title page 

of each transcript volume “shall conform to Form #App.R.28-1,” which requires that each title page specify 

both the number of that volume and the total number of volumes (for example, “Volume 1 of 8”), as well as 

which pages that volume contains (for example, “Pages 1 through 250”). All the title pages of the eightvolume transcript in this case list the page numbers contained in all the volumes, but none of them specify the 

number of that particular volume. Also, the transcript’s table of contents is not in a separately bound volume 

as required by Appellate Rule 28(A)(8). And finally, the exhibits were not bound as required by Appellate 

Rule 29(A). These rule violations needlessly complicated our review of Brooke’s appeal. We remind the court 

reporter that any provision of the Appellate Rules “regarding preparation of the Record on Appeal may be 

enforced by order of the Court on Appeal” pursuant to Appellate Rule 27 and that we will not hesitate to issue 

such orders in response to future rule violations.
6

When the negotiations resumed, Drogosz told Deputy Ferguson that he wanted to 

speak with Brooke. Deputy Ferguson replied that he could not do so because Brooke was in

custody. Drogosz said that he “would think about coming out” and hung up the phone. Id. at 

63. A gunshot rang out. Deputy Ferguson and Detective Pfost initially thought that Drogosz 

might have shot himself, but moments later Drogosz fired dozens of shots from a .308 caliber 

semiautomatic rifle that had been illegally converted to a fully automatic weapon. Bullets 

struck two police cars, narrowly missing Deputy Dulin’s shoulder and kicking snow into 

Deputy Ferguson’s face. The officers provided covering fire for each other so they could 

withdraw to safer positions farther from the house.

During the firefight, Brooke managed to get his hands in front of him and escaped 

from the police car. He ran to the backyard, grabbed one of his dogs, and ran toward Deputy 

Keen, asking him not to shoot. Deputy Keen took the dog and placed Brooke in a police car.

Eventually a SWAT team arrived and flushed Drogosz from the house with tear gas. Inside 

Brooke’s home, police found five handguns, four shotguns (including an illegal sawed-off 

shotgun), three rifles, thousands of rounds of ammunition, three bulletproof vests, fourteen 

Molotov cocktails, and the pipe bomb taped to the propane tank.3

The State charged Brooke with seven counts: class B felony conspiracy to commit 

armed robbery; class C felony intimidation; class C felony possession/manufacturing of a 

destructive device (a Molotov cocktail); class C felony possession of a destructive device (a 

 

3

 According to ATF agent Newby, if the pipe bomb had been detonated, there was “a large possibility 

of the explosive igniting the propane and causing a large fireball,” and the screws and bolts taped to the tank 

would have had an “anti-personnel shrapnel effect.” Tr. at 430.
7

pipe bomb); class D felony resisting law enforcement; class D felony unlawful use of body 

armor; and class D felony assisting a criminal. In April 2011, a jury found him guilty on all 

counts except the count relating to the pipe bomb. The trial court sentenced Brooke to 

twenty-two years of imprisonment. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

I. Conspiracy Conviction

Brooke frames his first argument as whether the State presented sufficient evidence to 

convict him of conspiracy to commit armed robbery.4 To convict Brooke of that crime, the 

State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Brooke, with the intent to commit armed 

robbery, agreed with another person to commit that felony and that either Brooke or his coconspirator(s) performed an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. See Ind. Code § 35-

41-5-2 (defining conspiracy). The State charged Brooke as follows:

With intent to commit a felony, to wit: Armed Robbery, John Brooke did 

agree with Michael Drogosz, James Reed and/or Kimberly Hitchens to commit 

the felony of Armed Robbery, which is to knowingly or intentionally take 

property from another person or from the presence of another person by using 

or threatening the use of force on any person, or by putting any person in fear, 

while armed with a deadly weapon; and John Brooke, Michael Drogosz, James 

Reed, or Kimberly Hitchens did perform an overt act in furtherance of the 

agreement, to wit:

• discussed having a shootout with the police should police come to 

[Brooke’s house];

 

4

 Robbery is the knowing or intentional taking of property from another person or from the presence of 

another person by using or threatening the use of force on any person or by putting any person in fear. Ind. 

Code § 35-42-5-1. Robbery is a class B felony if it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon. Id. “A 

conspiracy to commit a felony is a felony of the same class as the underlying felony.” Ind. Code § 35-41-5-

2(a).
8

• planned to have James Reed notify John Brooke via phone when police 

arrived, in the event Brooke was not home at the time;

• planned to have Kimberly Hitchens keep the officer(s) occupied when 

officers first arrived;

• planned to escape from the area and rob banks in Knox using firearms;

• wrote down portions of the plan and the supplies needed in execution of 

the plan;

• James Reed called John Brooke when police arrived at the house; and,

• Michael Drogosz used a firearm to shoot at police after police arrived at 

the house[.]

Appellant’s App. at 15.

Brooke does not specifically argue that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable 

doubt that he and his colleagues intended and agreed to commit armed robbery or that they

performed the acts as alleged in the charging information. Rather, his argument seems to be

that those acts were performed in furtherance of “having a shootout with the police not 

robbing a bank.” Appellant’s Br. at 11. Brooke’s argument is perhaps marginally persuasive 

with respect to some of the alleged acts, but not with respect to the acts of “plan[ning] to ... 

rob banks in Knox using firearms,” “wr[iting] down portions of the plan and the supplies 

needed in execution of the plan,” and purchasing supplies (such as the first-aid kit) “that 

might be used in the execution of the plan.” Appellant’s App. at 15. Again, Brooke does not 

contend that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable that those acts were committed, 
9

nor does he contend that those acts are insufficiently “overt” for purposes of the conspiracy 

statute.5 Consequently, we affirm his conspiracy conviction.

II. Sentencing

Brooke asserts that his sentence is inappropriate pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 

7(B), which says, “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 advancing this 

assertion, Brooke first discusses the nature of his offenses and his character and then 

challenges the trial court’s consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The 

State correctly observes that Brooke “conflates two separate sentencing standards: whether 

the trial court abused its discretion in identifying aggravating and mitigating factors, and 

whether the aggregate sentence is inappropriate.” Appellee’s Br. at 16-17; see King v. State, 

894 N.E.2d 265, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (“As our Supreme Court has made clear, 

inappropriate sentence and abuse of discretion claims are to be analyzed separately.”) (citing 

Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218). 

We address each claim separately.

 

5

Such a contention would be meritless. See Dickenson v. State, 835 N.E.2d 542, 552-53 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2005) (holding that defendant’s act of “‘helping prepare a letter concerning the details of [an] 

agreement’” to commit murder was sufficiently overt to sustain conspiracy conviction), trans. denied; see also 

Owens v. State, 929 N.E.2d 754, 756-57 (Ind. 2010) (“A conspiracy is complete upon the agreement and the 

performance of an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. The overt act need not rise to the level of a 

‘substantial step’ required for an attempt to commit the felony. A defendant may therefore be convicted of a 

conspiracy to commit a felony without committing the felony and without even an attempt to commit it.”) 

(citations and quotation marks omitted).
10

A. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

In Amalfitano v. State, we said that

[s]entencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court 

and are reviewed only for abuse of discretion. To provide for meaningful 

appellate review, trial courts are required to enter reasonably detailed 

sentencing statements when imposing a sentence for a felony. A trial court 

may abuse its discretion when issuing a sentencing statement if: 1) it does not 

enter a sentencing statement at all, 2) the statement explains reasons for 

imposing a sentence but those reasons are not supported in the record, 3) the 

statement omits reasons clearly supported by the record that were advanced for 

consideration, or 4) reasons given in a statement are improper as a matter of 

law. If a sentencing order lists aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the 

order must identify all such circumstances and explain why each has been 

determined to be aggravating or mitigating.

956 N.E.2d 208, 211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citations omitted), trans. denied (2012).

“A single aggravating circumstance may be enough to justify both the enhancement of 

a sentence and the imposition of consecutive sentences.” Barber v. State, 863 N.E.2d 1199, 

1208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. The relative weight or value assignable to properly 

found reasons for imposing a sentence is not subject to review for abuse of discretion. Heyen 

v. State, 936 N.E.2d 294, 304 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied (2011). “We may review 

both the oral and written statements in order to identify the findings of the trial court.” Id.

1. Aggravating Circumstances

Brooke first asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in finding as an 

aggravating circumstance that “the harm, injury, loss or damage suffered by the victims of 

[his] crimes were significant and greater than the elements necessary to prove the 
11

commission of the offense[s].” Appellant’s App. at 33.6 In support of this determination, the 

trial court made the following additional findings in its written sentencing statement:

(A) While only one act in furtherance of the conspiracy is needed for a 

conviction, this Defendant engaged in many, including directing coconspirators to obtain the ingredients for explosives and then personally 

manufacturing the explosives to be used during the robbery, all of 

which occurred in a residential neighborhood.

(B) To commit the crime of Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, a person does 

not need to agree to kill police officers, but this Defendant did so.

(C) While it is not necessary to provide a firearm to a fugitive from justice 

in order to be convicted of Assisting a Criminal, this Defendant 

provided the fugitive sanctuary in the Defendant’s home and access to 

numerous high-powered weapons, ammunition, bullet-proof vests, and 

explosives, knowing that the police were likely to attempt to arrest the 

fugitive, and the fugitive had stated that he would not go back to prison. 

The logical inference was that the fugitive would use the weapons to 

resist any effort by police to take him into custody.

(D) While it is not necessary that a fugitive from justice engage in violence 

when police attempt to execute an arrest warrant in order for the 

Defendant to be convicted of Assisting a Criminal, the fugitive from 

justice in this case used the Defendant’s home for protection while he 

fired more than fifty, (50), rounds, with the specific intent of killing 

police officers. (The fugitive pled guilty to two, (2), Counts of 

Attempted Murder and Conspiracy to Commit Armed Robbery, and by 

agreement, was sentenced to serve seventy, (70), years in the Indiana 

Department of Correction[]). The bullets narrowly missed two, (2), 

officers who were pinned down behind their squad cars for cover. 

Photographic evidence and the testimony of Officer Bill Dulin 

established that one, (1), bullet came within a few inches of striking the 

officer in the back. The officers, who thought that they were going to 

die, will likely remember that traumatic experience the rest of their 

lives. That harm is significant, and greater than the elements necessary 

to prove the commission of the offenses.

 

6

 See Ind. Code § 35-38-1-7.1(a) (“In determining what sentence to impose for a crime, the court may 

consider the following aggravating circumstances: (1) The harm, injury, loss, or damage suffered by the victim 

of an offense was: (A) significant; and (B) greater than the elements necessary to prove the commission of the 

offense.”).
12

Id. at 33-34.

Regarding paragraph (A), Brooke contends that “[n]othing in the evidence supports 

that explosives were to be used during the robbery.” Appellant’s Br. at 15. Brooke told 

investigators that the Molotov cocktails were going to be used “[f]or repelling the officers,” 

Tr. at 530, and we think that it was perfectly reasonable for the trial court to infer that they 

could have been used not only during a standoff at Brooke’s home but also during the bank 

robberies. As for paragraph (B), Brooke says that he “planned/agreed to shoot police 

officers, but he chose not to follow through with the plan. He did not fire a shot at anyone.” 

Appellant’s Br. at 15. This argument misapprehends the nature of a conspiracy charge, 

which focuses on the agreement to commit a offense and not the actual commission of an 

offense. Concerning paragraph (C), Brooke assertsthat he “did not provide [the firearms and 

other items] to Drogosz. Drogosz took it upon himself to use the weapons and shoot at the 

police.” Id. Brooke’s attempt to evade responsibility for Drogosz’s violent actions did not 

convince the trial court, nor does it convince us. And finally, regarding paragraph (D), 

Brooke points out that “the police officers involved did not even make any type of statement 

at all during the sentencing hearing.” Id. True enough, but an obviously emotional Deputy 

Ferguson testified at trial that he thought that he “wasn’t going to see [his] wife again” after 

Drogosz opened fire with the automatic rifle, Tr. at 67, and Deputy Ferguson testified that a 

bullet “came through about four or five inches away from [his] right shoulder.” Id. at 86. 

This testimony is more than sufficient to support the trial court’s determination that the 

experience was “traumatic” for the officers.
13

More generally, Brooke asserts that “[n]one of the reasons the trial court states in 

support [of] this aggravating factor actually shows any harm, injury, loss or damage to the 

victims.” Appellant’s Br. at 15. Although it is true that no one was physically harmed, 

Brooke’s plan to kill police officers and rob two banks with the assistance of a wanted 

fugitive was exceedingly reckless and violent and resulted in an armed confrontation and a 

shootout that traumatized the officers involved and riddled two of their cars with bullets. We 

cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in finding the nature of Brooke’s crimes to 

be an aggravating circumstance.

The trial court also found as an aggravating circumstance that Brooke was “a leader in 

the conspiracy involving four, (4), people, to kill police, rob banks with automatic weapons, 

bullet-proof vests, and explosives, and then flee the county [sic].” Appellant’s App. at 34. 

Brooke complains that “[i]f any one person was the leader in this it was Drogosz. He was the 

one that said he would not go back to jail. He wanted to have a shoot out with police.” 

Appellant’s Br. at 15. The State correctly observes that the trial court “did not find that 

Brooke was the only leader of the conspiracy, rather that he was a leader – consistent both 

with Drogosz’s key role in the crimes and the lesser culpability of Hitchens and Reed.” 

Appellee’s Br. at 18. We find no abuse of discretion here, either.

The trial court found as a third aggravating circumstance that he made false statements 

during the police investigation of the shootout. Brooke contends that his false statements “do 

not justify both an enhanced and consecutive sentence.” Appellant’s Br. at 15. Brooke’s
14

argument is a request to reweigh this aggravator, which we may not do. Heyen, 936 N.E.2d 

at 304.

As the fourth and final aggravating circumstance, the trial court found that Brooke’s

distorted view of the world and his strong anti-law enforcement attitude, 

combined with his long-held, all-consuming obsession with firearms and 

explosives, make him a dangerous individual. The evidence in the trial 

included the following:

(A) The Defendant spent the night of the Millen[n]ium in the woods 

with his rifle, to shoot individuals during the anarchy that would 

occur after midnight.

(B) The Defendant allegedly dropped out of high school because of 

the “Columbine shootings.”

(C) The Defendant told investigators from the ATF that, “If 

America is ever invaded, I’m the man.”

The Defendant has an anti-social attitude and anti-social personality 

which are major risk factors for recidivism.

Appellant’s App. at 35-36. Brooke claims that “[n]othing in the record would support that 

his beliefs have caused him to ever be violent toward others or a danger to others.” 

Appellant’s Br. at 14. The incidents that led to Brooke’s arrest convincingly demonstrate 

otherwise. We find no abuse of discretion here.

2. Mitigating Circumstances

The trial court found three mitigating factors: (1) that Brooke “led a law-abiding life 

for a substantial period before the commission of the crime[s]”; (2) that he “did not commit 

perjury,” unlike Hitchens and Reed; and (3) that he “has the support of his family members.” 

Appellant’s App. at 36. Brooke contends that the court erroneously “failed to consider and 
15

weigh” several additional mitigating circumstances. Appellant’s Br. at 16. Brooke failed to 

raise these mitigators at the sentencing hearing and therefore has waived their consideration 

on appeal. See Sargent v. State, 875 N.E.2d 762, 770 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (“If the defendant 

fails to advance a mitigating circumstance at sentencing, this court will presume that the 

circumstance is not significant and the defendant is precluded from advancing it as a 

mitigating circumstance for the first time on appeal.”). Brooke also argues that “the 

mitigating circumstances outweigh any aggravating circumstances,” Appellant’s Br. at 16, 

but such claims are not reviewable on appeal. See Powell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1259, 1262 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (“Because the trial court no longer has any obligation to weigh 

aggravating and mitigating factors against each other when imposing a sentence, a trial court 

cannot now be said to have abused its discretion in failing to properly weigh such factors.”), 

trans. denied (2009).

B. Appropriateness of Sentence

We have said that 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. 

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. 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.

Coleman v. State, 952 N.E.2d 377, 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citations and quotation marks 

omitted). “Although Rule 7(B) does not require us to be ‘extremely’ deferential to a trial 

court’s sentencing decision, we still must give due consideration to that decision. We also 
16

understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing 

decisions.” Id. at 383 (citation omitted). Brooke bears the burden of persuading us that his 

sentence is inappropriate. Id. at 384.

1. Nature of the Offense

“Regarding the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting point our 

legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Richardson v. 

State, 906 N.E.2d 241, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). The sentencing range for a class B felony is 

between six and twenty years, with an advisory sentence of ten years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5. 

The sentencing range for a class C felony is between two and eight years, with an advisory 

sentence of four years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6. And the sentencing range for a class D felony 

is between six months and three years, with an advisory sentence of one and one-half years. 

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7. Here, the trial court imposed concurrent executed sentences of 

fifteen years for class B felony conspiracy to commit armed robbery and four years for class 

C felony possession/manufacturing of a destructive device; concurrent executed sentences of 

four years for class C felony intimidation, one year for class D felony resisting law 

enforcement, and one year for class D felony unlawful use of body armor, to be served 

consecutive to the foregoing counts; and a three-year executed sentence for class D felony 

assisting a criminal, to be served consecutive to the foregoing counts, for a total sentence of 

twenty-two years of imprisonment.

Brooke’s conspiracy entailed killing police officers and robbing two banks. He 

furnished a wanted fugitive with numerous firearms, incendiary and explosive devices, and a 
17

bulletproof vest, and he himself advanced toward unsuspecting police officers with an assault 

rifle and a handgun and a bulletproof vest. Brooke self-servingly claims that “[h]e made a 

conscious decision to not fire a shot that day.” Appellant’s Br. at 13. He neglects to 

mention, however, that he disobeyed the officers’ commands to drop his rifle, engaged in a 

physical struggle with Sergeant Baker and Detective Pfost, and reached for the pocket that 

held his .50 caliber handgun. Deputy Ferguson believed that Brooke “was actually going to 

try to kill” Sergeant Baker and Detective Pfost. Tr. at 61. Drogosz fired dozens of shots at 

the officers with Brooke’s illegal automatic rifle and had to be ousted from Brooke’s home 

with tear gas. Incredibly, no one was killed or wounded during the armed standoff at 

Brooke’s home, but the reckless and violent nature of his crimes clearly justifies a lengthy 

sentence.

2. Character of the Offender

Brooke was born in October 1986, had no previous juvenile or criminal history, and 

was gainfully employed. Nevertheless, he demonstrated extremely poor judgment and a 

callous disregard for societal norms and human life by harboring a wanted fugitive and 

conspiring with him to kill police officers and rob banks. Brooke could have turned Drogosz 

over to the authorities, or at least not interfered with their attempt to arrest him. Instead, fully 

armed and armored, he confronted the officers and reached toward his handgun while they 

struggled to handcuff him. After he was arrested, he gave false statements to investigators. 

Brooke has failed to persuade us that his antisocial character warrants a reduction of his 

sentence. Therefore, we affirm.
18

Affirmed.

VAIDIK, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.