Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1709-CR-2163 | February 2, 2018 Page 1 of 5

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

Jeremy K. Nix

Huntington, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

George P. Sherman

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Christopher F. Raddenbach,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

February 2, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

90A02-1709-CR-2163

Appeal from the Wells Superior 

Court

The Honorable Andrew K. 

Antrim, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

90D01-1602-CM-40

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1709-CR-2163 | February 2, 2018 Page 2 of 5

[1] Christopher F. Raddenbach appeals the sentence imposed following his plea of 

guilty to Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an alcohol 

concentration equivalent of .15 or more and his admission to being a habitual 

vehicular substance offender. On appeal, Raddenbach argues that his sentence 

is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On February 6, 2016, two Wells County Sheriff’s Deputies had parked their 

vehicles in a parking lot across the street from an apartment building. While 

there, the deputies noticed a man, later identified as Raddenbach, standing in 

front of the apartment building and waving his arms at them. Raddenbach gave 

the deputies the middle finger before going inside the building. When 

Raddenbach came back outside about a minute later, he got into a silver SUV, 

backed the vehicle out of its parking spot, and turned it to face the deputies 

across the street. For the next several minutes, Raddenbach alternated between 

flashing the vehicle’s bright headlights and leaving them on for brief intervals.

[4] The deputies then drove across the street to speak to Raddenbach, and 

Raddenbach told them that he was upset because he thought the deputies had 

been deliberately shining their headlights into his apartment window. 

Raddenbach displayed multiple signs of intoxication during this exchange and 

he admitted that he had been drinking. After Raddenbach failed field sobriety 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1709-CR-2163 | February 2, 2018 Page 3 of 5

tests, he submitted to a certified chemical breath test, which revealed an alcohol 

concentration equivalent of .159.

[5] As a result of these events, the State charged Raddenbach with Class A 

misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent of 

.15 or more and Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated. 

The State also alleged that Raddenbach was a habitual vehicular substance 

offender. Raddenbach failed to appear for a hearing on March 3, 2016, and his 

whereabouts were unknown until he was arrested on February 2, 2017. 

[6] One June 15, 2017, Raddenbach pled guilty to the Class A misdemeanor charge 

and admitted to being a habitual vehicular substance offender, and the State 

dismissed the Class C misdemeanor charge. On August 17, 2017, the trial court 

sentenced Raddenbach to one year for the Class A misdemeanor, enhanced by 

three years based on the habitual vehicular substance offender finding. 

Raddenbach now appeals.

Discussion & Decision

[7] Raddenbach argues that his four-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate. 

Article 7, section 4 of the Indiana Constitution grants our Supreme Court the 

power to review and revise criminal sentences. See Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 

1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 978 (2015). Pursuant to Ind. 

Appellate Rule 7, the Supreme Court authorized this court to perform the same 

task. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). Per App. R. 7(B), 

we may revise a sentence “if after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1709-CR-2163 | February 2, 2018 Page 4 of 5

the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and the character of the offender.” Inman v. State, 4 N.E.3d 190, 203 

(Ind. 2014) (quoting App. R. 7). “Sentencing review under Appellate Rule 7(B) 

is very deferential to the trial court.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind.

2012). “Such deference should prevail unless overcome by compelling evidence 

portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by 

restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant’s character (such as 

substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson 

v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). 

[8] The determination of whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate “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.” Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134, 1145 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Cardwell, 895 

N.E.2d at 1224). Moreover, “[t]he principal role of such review is to attempt to 

leaven the outliers.” Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. 2013). It is 

not our goal in this endeavor to achieve the perceived “correct” sentence in 

each case. Knapp, 9 N.E.3d at 1292. Accordingly, “the question under 

Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, 

the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” King v. State, 

894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (emphasis in original). 

[9] In order to assess the appropriateness of a sentence, we first look to the 

statutory range established for the classification of the relevant offense. 

Raddenbach committed a Class A misdemeanor and was found to be a habitual 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1709-CR-2163 | February 2, 2018 Page 5 of 5

vehicular substance offender. Thus, the trial court had the discretion to 

sentence Raddenbach to a term of up to nine years in prison. See Ind. Code § 

35-50-3-2 (providing that a person who commits a Class A misdemeanor shall 

be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than one year); Ind. Code § 9-30-

15.5-2 (providing that a person found to be a habitual vehicular substance 

offender shall be sentenced to an additional term of at least one year but not 

more than eight years). Raddenbach was sentenced to four years in prison. 

[10] The nature of the offense in this case is, for the most part, unremarkable. 

However, Raddenbach’s character is sufficient standing alone to support his 

four-year sentence. Raddenbach has a long criminal history, including 

convictions for theft, trespassing, false informing, leaving the scene of an 

accident, operating a vehicle while a habitual traffic violator, operating a 

vehicle after a lifetime license forfeiture, and multiple operating while 

intoxicated offenses. Raddenbach has also violated probation numerous times, 

and he was on parole at the time of the instant offense. We also note that 

Raddenbach failed to appear for a hearing in this case on March 3, 2016, and 

his whereabouts were unknown until he was arrested on February 2, 2017. For 

all of these reasons, we cannot conclude that Raddenbach’s four-year sentence 

is inappropriate.

[11] Judgment affirmed.

[12] May, J. and Vaidik, C.J., concur.