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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Ronald J. Moore

The Moore Law Firm, LLC

Richmond, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

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 Lee Walker,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

May 16, 2019

Court of Appeals Case 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 an amount 
Court 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. They believed the woman was Camella 

Baker, for whom there was an active arrest warrant in connection with dealing

in narcotics. Four police officers approached Walker’s front door to talk with 

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 to 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, the officer approached Walker and conducted a pat down for weapons. 

He noticed a large, clear plastic baggie hanging out of one of Walker’s pants 

pockets. Officer Mastriano saw an off-white substance in the bag and believed 

it to be cocaine. He placed Walker in custody and seized the baggie. The 
Court 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 greater 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 15, 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 into 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 and 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 in 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 inappropriate in 

light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.”

[13] An 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] At 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 murder or a Level 1 through Level 4 felony could be 

sentenced to an additional fixed term of between six and twenty years. Ind. 

Code § 35-50-2-8 (2015).

[15] The 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 years. His sentence is well short 

of the potential maximum of twenty-eight and a half years.

[16] Turning to the nature of the offenses, 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 old at sentencing, and he has 

a substantial criminal record. The habitual offender enhancement was based on 

prior felony convictions for dealing in cocaine, a Class B felony, and battery

and/or intimidation, both Class C felonies. He has other prior felony 

convictions for Class B felony dealing in cocaine and Class D felony failure to 

appear. In addition, Walker has accrued five 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 parole, probation, and bail demonstrates 

that he has refused to take advantage of alternatives to incarceration.

[19] By his own admission, Walker has 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 his 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.