Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1707-CR-1641 | April 30, 2018 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

Mark Small

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Chandra K. Hein

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana 

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Deandre Barnum,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 30, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

48A02-1707-CR-1641

Appeal from the Madison Circuit 

Court

The Honorable David A. Happe, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

48C04-1606-F1-1175

Mathias, Judge.

[1] Deandre Barnum (“Barnum”) pleaded guilty to Level 3 felony aggravated 

battery and Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a violent felon in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1707-CR-1641 | April 30, 2018 Page 2 of 6

Madison Circuit Court. Sentencing was left to the discretion of the trial court,

and Barnum received fourteen years executed in the Department of Correction 

(“DOC”) for the aggravated battery and ten years for the unlawful possession of 

a firearm, for an aggregate sentence of twenty-four years. Barnum now appeals 

and argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense 

and the character of the offender. 

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On June 5, 2016, Rodrico Malone solicited a date from backpage.com—“an 

application on Craigslist which focuses on ‘dating’ but also has been involved in 

prostitution.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 3, p. 23. Barnum accompanied two 

females, Kyle Buczek and Ashtin McGregor, to Malone’s house “so that 

McGregor could have sex” with Malone. Id. After dropping McGregor off, 

Barnum parked his vehicle nearby and waited for her to come back out. When 

McGregor came back to Barnum’s vehicle, she complained that Malone “had 

been rough with her and that he had put a gun to her head.” Id.

[4] Barnum was not happy, and after stopping by McGregor’s home, he gave each 

of the two women instructions and proceeded back to Malone’s. McGregor 

stayed in the car while Buczek went to the door to lure Malone out of the 

house. Buczek did as Barnum requested, and when Malone opened the door 

Barnum fired several shots at Malone, hitting him in the leg once. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1707-CR-1641 | April 30, 2018 Page 3 of 6

[5] Barnum was apprehended by officers later that day, and during a pat down 

search officers found marijuana. Four days later Barnum was charged with 

Level 1 felony attempted murder, Class A misdemeanor possession of

marijuana, and Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana. On July 1, the 

State amended the charging information to include Level 4 felony unlawful 

possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. 

[6] On May 22, 2017, the State again amended the charging information, this time 

to include Level 3 felony aggravated battery and an enhancement for the use of 

a firearm in commission of the offense. A jury trial commenced on May 23, and 

on the second day of trial, Barnum pleaded guilty to Level 3 felony aggravated 

battery and Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serous violent 

felon. The State dismissed the remaining charges.

[7] On June 26, 2017, the trial court sentenced Barnum to fourteen years executed 

in the DOC for the aggravated battery and ten years executed for the unlawful 

possession for an aggregate sentence of twenty-four years. 

[8] Barnum now appeals his sentence.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Barnum argues that the imposition of the aggregate twenty-four-year sentence is 

inappropriate. Specifically, Barnum contends that his enhanced sentence is 

inappropriate because he was a “moderate risk to reoffend,” and “[t]here was 

nothing indicated by the trial court that marked this offense as heinous.” 

Appellant’s Br. at 10. We disagree with Barnum’s conclusion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1707-CR-1641 | April 30, 2018 Page 4 of 6

[10] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “[t]he 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 conducting our review, “[w]e do not look 

to determine if the sentence was appropriate; instead we look to make sure the 

sentence was not inappropriate.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 

2012). “[S]entencing is principally a discretionary function in which the trial 

court’s judgment should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 

N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008). Thus, although we have the power to review 

and revise sentences, the principal role of appellate 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.” Id. at 1225. It is Barnum’s burden on 

appeal to establish that his sentence is inappropriate. Grimes v. State, 84 N.E.3d 

635, 645 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied.

[11] When considering the nature of the offense, we observe that “the advisory 

sentence is the starting point the Legislature selected as appropriate for the 

crime committed.” Pierce v. State, 949 N.E.2d 349, 352 (Ind. 2011). The 

advisory sentence for a Level 3 felony is nine years, with a sentencing range of 

three to sixteen years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5. And the advisory sentence for a 

Level 4 felony is six years, with a sentencing range of two to twelve years. Ind. 

Code § 35-50-2-5.5 Thus, Barnum was ordered to serve five years above the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1707-CR-1641 | April 30, 2018 Page 5 of 6

advisory for the Level 3 felony and four years above the advisory for the Level 4 

felony.

[12] Regarding the nature of the offense here, Barnum used a woman to lure Malone 

out of his home. He then fired several shots at Malone, ultimately striking him

in the leg and causing serious injury. Moreover, Barnum was on drugs at the 

time he shot Malone, and he was on probation when he committed the offense. 

Although there may have been no mention by the trial court that the offense 

was particular heinous, see Appellant’s Br. at 13, we find that it was.

[13] We acknowledge that some of the factors above do not directly relate to the 

charges Barnum pleaded guilty to, however, “it is not necessary for a trial court 

to turn a blind eye to the facts of the incident that brought the defendant before 

them.” Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134, 1145 (Ind. 2013); see also Anglemyer v. 

State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 492 (Ind. 2007) (holding the “circumstances of the crime 

as well as the manner in which the crime is committed” are proper aggravating 

factors for a trial court to consider). Simply put, the nature of the offense does 

not support a finding that Barnum’s enhanced sentence was inappropriate.

[14] Barnum’s character also does not convince us that an enhanced sentence was 

inappropriate here. He is a twenty-two-year-old man with convictions for 

battery, intimidation, dealing in a narcotic drug, possession of a narcotic drug, 

carrying a handgun without a license, and possession of marijuana. And this is 

his second felony conviction. Further, Barnum has violated probation on 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1707-CR-1641 | April 30, 2018 Page 6 of 6

several occasions, and he has failed to go a full year without committing a new 

criminal offense since he turned eighteen. 

[15] Despite Barnum’s previous contact with the criminal justice system and the 

police power of the State, he was not deterred from committing the instant 

offense. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s decision to impose 

an enhanced twenty-four-year aggregate sentence here is an “outlier” that 

should be reversed under our constitutional authority to review and revise 

sentences. Caraway v. State, 977 N.E.2d 469, 473 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. 

denied.

Conclusion

[16] Based on the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that Barnum has 

not met his burden of persuading us that his twenty-four-year aggregate 

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

of the offender. Accordingly, we affirm.

Najam, J., and Barnes, J., concur.