Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A

- CR

- 2712 | May 16, 2019 Page 1 of 6



### 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.
A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Ronald J. Moore The Moore Law Firm, LLC Richmond, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Erik J. Bryant Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana


### I N T H E 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Darren L ee Walker , Appellant

- Defendant,

v. 

### State of Indiana , Appellee

- Plaintiff

. May 16, 2019 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 18A

- CR

- 2712 Appeal from the Wayne Superior Court The Honorable Charles K. Todd, Jr., Judge Trial Court Cause No. 89D01

- 1602

- F3

- 14

Friedlander , Senior Judge .
[1] Darren Lee Walker appeals the nineteen

- year sentence the trial court imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine or narcotic drug in a n amountCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A

- CR

- 2712 | May 16, 2019 Page 2 of 6

greater than twenty

- eight grams , a Level 3 felony; resisting law enforcement while using a motor vehicle , a Level 6 felony; and being an habitual offender. We affirm.

[2] In early February 2016 , Richmond Police Department officers arrested two people for drug possession after they were seen leaving Walker’s apartment

. Both persons claimed they had purchased drugs from Walker. The officers continued to monitor Walker’s apartment

.
[3] On February 12, 2016, Officer James Mastriano and several other officers saw a
woman enter Walker’s apartment. The y believed the woman was Camella Baker, for whom there was a n active arrest warrant in connection with dealing in narcotics. Four police officers approached Walker’s front door to talk w ith Walker , while Officer Mastriano and another officer went to the back door

.
[4] A short time later, Walker and the woman came out of the rear door of his apartment. Officer Mastriano approached them , identified himself as a police officer, and asked them t o stop. Instead of stopping, Walker approached Officer Mastriano while he reached into his pockets. Officer Mastriano drew his weapon and ordered Walker to remove his hands from his pockets. Walker complied.

[5] Next, t he o fficer approached Walker and conducted a pat down for weapons. He noticed a large, clear plastic baggie hanging out of one of Walker’s pants pocket s . O fficer Mastriano saw an off

- white substance in the bag and believed it to be cocaine. He placed Walker in cus tody and seized the baggie. TheCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A

- CR

- 2712 | May 16, 2019 Page 3 of 6

contents of the bag were tested, and the results showed that the bag contained over thirty

- three grams of cocaine.

[6] On February 18, 2016, the State charged Walker with possession of cocaine or narcotic drug in an amount grea ter than twenty

- eight grams, a Level 3 felony. The State further alleged that Walker was an habitual offender. On October 10, 2016, Walker posted bond and was released from jail.

[7] On May 1 5 , 2017 , Walker filed a motion to suppress, claiming the State did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to detain and search him

. The trial court held a hearing and later denied the motion.

[8] Meanwhile, on June 25, 2017, a police officer stopped a vehicle being driven by Walker after the officer observed a traffic violation

. Walker initially stopped but subsequently fled in his vehicle. An officer chased Walker with lights and sirens activated, but Walker continued to flee . He eventually stopped and was taken in to custody.

[9] On March 8, 2018, the State filed an amended information, charging Walker with resisting law enforcement while using a motor vehicle, a Level 6 felony. On April 30, 2018, the parties filed a proposed plea agreement with the trial court. During a subsequent court hearing, Walker repudiated the proposed plea agreement , and the court informed the parties that no further plea agreements would be accepted.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A

- CR

- 2712 | May 16, 2019 Page 4 of 6

[10] On July 30, 2018, Walker filed a notice of intent to plead guilty. The trial court held a hearing and determined that Walker was pleading guilty as charged without a plea agreement. The court accepted his guilty plea a nd sentenced Walker to serve nineteen years executed . This appeal followed.

[11] Walker argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character

. He asks the Court to reduce his sentence to sixteen years, with eight years suspended to probation.

[12] Article VII , section six of the Indiana Constitution authorizes this Court to review and revise a defendant’s sentence i n criminal cases. This authority is implemented through Indiana 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 in appropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.”

[13] A n appellant bears the burden of proving that a sentence meets the inappropriateness standard. Childress v. State , 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006). Whether we regard a sentence as appropriate at the end of the day turns on our sense of 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 (Ind. 2008). In reviewing the defendant’s sentence, the question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. Mateo v. State , 981 N.E.2d 59 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied

.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A

- CR

- 2712 | May 16, 2019 Page 5 of 6

[14] A t the time Walker committed his offenses, the advisory sentence for a Level 3 felony was nine years, with a minimum sentence of three years and a maximum sentence of sixteen years. Ind. Code § 35

- 50

- 2

- 5 (2014). In addition, the advisory sentence for a Level 6 felony was one year, with a minimum sentence of six months and a maximum sentence of two and a half years. Ind. Code § 35

- 50

- 2

- 7 (2014)

. Finally, as for the habitual offender sentencing enhancement, a person convicted of m urder or a Level 1 through Level 4 felon y could be sentenced to an additional fixed term of between six and twenty years. Ind. Code § 35

- 50

- 2

- 8 (2015).

[15] T he trial court sentenced Walker to nine years for Level 3 felony possession of cocaine, enhanced by nine years due to the habitual offender enhancement. The court further sentenced him to one year for Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement. In addition, the court ordered Walker to serve his sentences consecutively, for a total sentence of nineteen ye ars. His sentence i s well short of the potential maximum of twenty

- eight and a half years.

[16] Turning to the nature of the offense s , Walker was found to have thirty

- three grams of cocaine on his person, an amount well above the twenty
- eight

- gram minimum for a Level 3 felony. Officer Mastriano testified that most of the controlled drug buys in Richmond are for amounts ranging from one

- half gram to one gram, so Walker possessed a comparatively large quantity of cocaine. In addition, it is troubling that Walker committed felony resisting law enforcement while out on bail

.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A

- CR

- 2712 | May 16, 2019 Page 6 of 6

[17] As for Walker’s character, he was thirty

- five years ol d at sentencing , and he has a substantial criminal record

. The habitual offender enhancement was based on prior felony convictions f or dealing in cocaine, a Class B felony, and battery and /or intimidation , both Class C felon ies

. He has other prior felony conviction s for Class B felony dealing in cocaine and Class D felony failure to appear. In addition, Walker has accrued f ive misdemeanor convictions of driving while suspended

.
[18] Walker was on parole when he was initially arrested in this case. He has been placed on probation in the past and has twice violated the terms of probation

. His failure to comply with the terms of parol e , probation, and bail demonstrates that he has refused to take advantage of alternatives to incarceration.

[19] By his own admission, Walker h as not held a steady job since he was in high school. He has instead earned money by collecting and selling scrap. Walker has seven children, and he pays court

- ordered child support for only two of them. Walker claims he “is capable of . . . productive reentry into the community.” Appellant’s Br. p. 12. His lengthy criminal record, in conjunction with h is poor work history , demonstrates an unwillingness to reform . He has failed to persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate.

[20] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[21] Affirmed

. Vaidik, C.J., and Baker, J., concur.