Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-619 | August 23, 2017 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

David D. Becsey

Zeigler Cohen & Koch

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Matthew B. MacKenzie

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana 

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Anthony LaRussa,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

August 23, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1703-CR-619

Appeal from the Marion Superior

Court

The Hon. Kurt M. Eisgruber, Judge

Trial Court Cause No. 

49G01-1402-MR-9082

Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-619 | August 23, 2017 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] On February 20, 2014, Appellant-Defendant Anthony LaRussa, Kenneth 

Rackemann, Samantha Bradley, and Valencia Williams formed a plan to rob 

Walter Burnell, who was dealing drugs out of an Indianapolis house. 

Rackemann went to the house with a gun provided by LaRussa, while Bradley 

and Williams waited in the car. Inside the house were Burnell, Hailey Navarra, 

Jacob Rodemich, Kristy Sanchez, and one other person. 

[2] Rackemann pulled the gun on Burnell and, when Burnell indicated that he was 

not going to give him anything, shot Burnell, killing him. Rackermann then 

shot Rodemich and Sanchez, killing them, and wounded Navarra, who was 

then killed by Williams. LaRussa ultimately pled guilty to Class A felony 

conspiracy to commit robbery, and trial court sentenced him to forty-four years 

of incarceration. LaRussa contends that his sentence is inappropriately harsh. 

Because we disagree, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In early 2013, LaRussa met Matthew Fendley while the two were incarcerated. 

Later that year, Fendley was released from prison and reconnected with 

LaRussa in Indianapolis. LaRussa took Fendley to a residence at 3432 South 

Parker Avenue and introduced him to Burnell. According to Fendley, Burnell 

was selling methamphetamine, heroin, marijuana, and prescription pills from 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-619 | August 23, 2017 Page 3 of 7

3432 South Parker, and Fendley eventually came to work there providing 

security along with Rackemann. 

[4] On February 20, 2014, LaRussa, Rackemann, Bradley, and Williams formed a 

plan to rob Burnell. Rackemann was to go to 3432 South Parker, offer to sell 

Burnell some methamphetamine, wait until Burnell opened a safe, and rob him. 

To that end, LaRussa provided Rackemann, who was high at the time on an 

unknown drug, with a black revolver. Later that day, Fendley and Navarro 

were dropped off at 3432 South Parker and, not long after, received a telephone 

call from Rackemann, who told Fendley that he, Bradley, and Williams were 

coming over to sell Burnell some methamphetamine. In addition to Burnell, 

Fendley, and Navarra, Rodemich and Sanchez were also inside 3432 South 

Parker when Rackemann arrived. Rackemann went inside and left Bradley and 

Williams in the car. 

[5] Once inside, Rackemann pulled LaRussa’s black revolver on Burnell and 

attempted to rob him. When Burnell told Rackemann that he would not give 

him anything and that Rackemann would have to shoot him, Rackemann did, 

once in the chest, killing Burnell. Rackemann then found Rodemich and

Sanchez and shot them both in the head, killing them. Rackemann also shot 

Navarra in the neck, wounding her. Williams came into the house when 

Rackemann ran out of ammunition and shot Navarra several times, killing her

as well. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-619 | August 23, 2017 Page 4 of 7

[6] On February 27, 2014, the State charged LaRussa with four counts of murder, 

Class A felony robbery, and Class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery. On 

February 22, 2017, pursuant to a plea agreement, LaRussa pled guilty to Class 

A felony conspiracy to commit robbery. On March 2, 2017, the trial court 

sentenced LaRussa to forty-four years of incarceration, with forty to be served 

in the Department of Correction and four to be served in community 

corrections. The trial court found LaRussa’s guilty plea and remorse to be 

mitigating factors that were nonetheless far outweighed by his criminal history 

and the facts, circumstances, and foreseeability of the crime. 

Discussion and Decision

Appropriateness of Sentence

[7] LaRussa contends that his enhanced sentence is inappropriately harsh. We 

“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.” Ind. Appellate 

Rule 7(B). “Although appellate review of sentences must give due 

consideration to the trial court’s sentence because of the special expertise of the 

trial bench in making sentencing decisions, Appellate Rule 7(B) is an 

authorization to revise sentences when certain broad conditions are satisfied.” 

Shouse v. State, 849 N.E.2d 650, 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied (citations 

and quotation marks omitted). “[W]hether we regard a sentence as appropriate 

at the end of the day turns on our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-619 | August 23, 2017 Page 5 of 7

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). In addition to the “due consideration” we are required to give to the 

trial court’s sentencing decision, “we understand and recognize the unique 

perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.” Rutherford v. State, 

866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). LaRussa pled guilty to Class A 

felony, which has a sentencing range of twenty to fifty years of incarceration, 

with the advisory sentence being thirty years.

1

 See Ind. Code § 32-50-2-4(a). As 

mentioned, the trial court imposed an enhanced sentence of forty-four years. 

[8] The nature of LaRussa’s offense justifies an enhanced sentence. While 

LaRussa may not have intended the deaths of Burnell, Navarra, Rodemich, and

Sanchez, he was heavily involved in the plan to commit armed robbery of 

Burnell, a person known to be an armed drug dealer. In addition to hatching a 

detailed plan for the robbery, LaRussa provided Rackemann—who was high on 

drugs at the time—with a firearm. Under the circumstances, the bloody and 

tragic consequences of this incredibly ill-conceived plan were entirely 

foreseeable. LaRussa’s role in planning an attempted armed robbery that 

predictably turned into a quadruple murder justifies his enhanced sentence. 

 

1

 LaRussa also notes that recent amendments to the robbery statute have changed the maximum sentence 

from fifty to forty years and argues that they reflect a change in public policy that should, presumably, result 

in a sentence reduction. “Generally speaking, the sentencing statutes in effect at the time the defendant 

committed the offense govern the defendant’s sentence.” Marley v. State, 17 N.E.3d 335, 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2014), trans denied. LaRussa does not explain why his case should be an exception to the general rule. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-619 | August 23, 2017 Page 6 of 7

[9] LaRussa’s character also fully justifies an enhanced sentence. LaRussa

accumulated the following juvenile record beginning in 2001 at the age of 11: 

(1) a 2001 adjudication for theft, diversion failed, substance abuse treatment 

failed, probation violation; (2) a 2001 adjudication for burglary, violation found 

true; (3) a 2002 adjudication for auto theft and resisting law enforcement, 

violation found true; and (4) a 2003 adjudication for auto theft, resisting law 

enforcement, and fleeing law enforcement. LaRussa has the following prior 

adult criminal record: (a) 2005 convictions for Class C felony burglary and 

Class D felony auto theft, three probation revocations resulting in DOC 

placement; (2) a 2010 conviction for Class A misdemeanor battery; (3) a 2011 

conviction for Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license, 

corresponding violation of community corrections and probation, probation 

revoked; and (4) 2013 felony convictions for possession of cocaine and a 

firearm. In summary, LaRussa incurred his first juvenile arrest at age eleven

and first adjudication at age fourteen, has numerous felony convictions and 

adjudications, has been arrested seventeen times as an adult, and has 

committed numerous violations of the terms of community corrections and 

probation. Despite LaRussa’s extensive criminal history, he has not chosen to 

reform himself. 

[10] LaRussa points to his guilty plea and stated remorse as points in his favor. 

LaRussa’s decision to plead guilty, however, was almost certainly a pragmatic 

one, as he stood to benefit greatly from his plea, to say the very least. In 

exchange for LaRussa’s guilty plea to one Class A felony, the State agreed to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-619 | August 23, 2017 Page 7 of 7

drop four murder charges and another Class A felony charge and not pursue a 

habitual offender enhancement or a life without parole enhancement. As for 

LaRussa’s remorse, we cannot say that it even comes close to defining 

LaRussa’s overall character to the extent that his extensive criminal history 

does. LaRussa has failed to establish that his forty-four-year sentence is 

inappropriate. 

[11] We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

May, J., and Barnes, J., concur.