Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03

- 1711

- CR

- 2613 | March 23, 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.

A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Sean C. Mullins Crown Point, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Henry A. Flores, Jr. Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana



### IN THE 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Lawrence Paul Whitfield , Appellant

- Defendant,

v. 

### State of Indiana , Appellee

- Plaintiff

. March 23, 2018 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 45A03

- 1711

- CR

- 2613 Appe al from the Lake Superior Court The Honorable Samuel L. Cappas, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 45G04

- 1705

- F4

- 21

Riley, Judge .Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03

- 1711

- CR

- 2613 | March 23, 2018 Page 2 of 6 

### STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant

- Defendant, Lawrence Paul Whitfield (Whitfield), appeals his aggravated five

- year sentence following a guilty plea to robbery, a Level 5 felony, Ind. Code § 35

- 42

- 5

- 1(1).

[2] We affirm. 

### ISSUE
[3] Whitfield presents us with one issue on appeal , which we restate as: Whether the aggravated sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and Whitfield’s character. 

### FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On April 3, 2017, nineteen

- year - old Whitfield and a friend knocked on the door of sixty

- seven - year - o ld Charles Hicks’ (Hicks) residence. When Hicks, a family friend, opened the door, Whitfield and his friend “forced” themselves into the home. (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 9). Inside, Whitfield “began threatening [Hicks] and took his phone and wallet c ontaining $87.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 9). Then, Whitfield walked Hicks to the bank where Whitfield “forced [Hicks] to withdraw money from his account.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 9). Hicks withdrew $30, of which Whitfield took half. At the bank, Hicks managed to warn the teller that he was being held against his will and police were called.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03

- 1711

- CR

- 2613 | March 23, 2018 Page 3 of 6 [5] On May 3, 2017, the State filed an Information, charging Whitfield with burglary, a Level 4 felony; robbery, a Level 5 felony; residential entry, a Level 6 felony; and kidnapping, a Level 6 felony. On September 13, 2017, pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, Whitfield pled guilty to L evel 5 felony robbery, with all other charges to be dismissed and sentencing left open to the trial court. On October 11, 2017, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing and sentenced Whitfield to an aggravated sentence of five years, with three years executed, one year in community corrections, and one year suspended to probation.

[6] Whitfield now appeals. Ad ditional facts will be provided if necessary. 

### DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[7] Whitfield contends that the trial court ’s imposition of an aggravated sentence

w as inappropriate in light of his character and the nature of the offense. He requests us to reduce his se ntence to be a mitigated, suspended sentence, served on probation. The Indiana Constitution authorizes appellate review and revision of criminal sentences. Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6. If, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find t he sentence inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the defendant, we may revise the sentence accordingly. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). In assessing whether a sentence is inappropriate, appellate courts may take into account whether a portion of the sentence is suspended or otherwise crafted using the variety of sentencing tools available to the trial court. Davidson v. State , 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010). The defendant bears the burden of persuading this court thatCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03

- 1711

- CR

- 2613 | March 23, 2018 Page 4 of 6 hi s or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State , 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

[8] Whitfield pled guilty to robbery as a Level 5 felony. “The advisory sentence is the starting point the Legislature selected as appropriate for the crime committe d.” Fuller v. State , 9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014). The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is a “fixed term of between one (1) and si x (6) years , with the advisory sentence being three (3) years.” I.C. § 35

- 50

- 2

- 6(b). Here, the trial court imposed a n aggravated sentence of five years.

[9] The “nature of the offense” prong compares the defendant’s actions with the required showing to sustain a conviction under the charged offense.” Anderson v. State , 989 N.E.2d 823, 827 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) , trans. denie d

. Looking at the circumstances before us , we note that Whitfield forced himself into the home of an elderly fam ily friend and threatened him into handing over his phone and wallet, containing $87. After robbing Hicks in his own residence, Whitfield escorted him to the bank and forced him to withdraw $30 , of which Whitfield took half

. The trial court summarized the situation succinctly as: This crime was not necessarily about the amount of money. This crime is about invading someone’s home and manip ulating him and intimidating him and invading his privacy. A man’s home is supposed to be his castle. You broke that rule. You are a situation of the young and the strong preying on the weak and the old. (Sent. Transcript p. 25).Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03

- 1711

- CR

- 2613 | March 23, 2018 Page 5 of 6 [10] In considering Whitf ield’s character, it is appropriate to examine his criminal history. See Bryant v. State , 841 N.E.2d 1154, 1156

- 57 (Ind. 2006). Although still young, Whitfield has already amass ed a criminal record, which includes at least eleven contacts with law enforc ement. The trial court reflected during the sentencing hearing: You know, so then look at your presentence report. You had two juvenile cases. And then starting in 2015, you get

– as an adult, you get disorderly conduct, criminal trespass, an auto theft , criminal damage to property, this burglary/robbery, another disorderly conduct, another criminal trespass, failure to return to lawful detention. And the theft is a misdemeanor. As the State points out 11 [contacts with the juvenile justice system]. S o nine were after you assured [the juvenile trial court judge] that you weren’t going to do anything. So nine times, from my perspective, you broke that vow to him. And you stand here in front of me making the same vow. I’ve got to tell you, your credib ility is not too good with me, because you have [a] pattern of not conforming yourself to the norms of society. (Sent. Tr. pp. 23

- 24). Whitfield has received probation, deferments, and pre

trial work release, but has violated the trial court’s gifts of leniency numerous times

. In fact, the record reflects that during pre

- trial detention in the instant case, Whitfield failed to report back to community corrections after leaving for a job interview on June 15, 2017. We have frequently held that c riminal history and frequent contact with the criminal justice system reflects negatively on one’s character. See, e.g., Rutherford v. State , 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (concluding that although the defendant’s criminal history was not aggravating “ to a high degree,” it was still a poor reflection on his character).Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03

- 1711

- CR

- 2613 | March 23, 2018 Page 6 of 6 Even by pleading guilty to a Level 5 felony, Whitfield received a substantial benefit already as he was facing a sentencing exposure of seventeen years.

[11] We are not persuaded by Whitfie ld’s argument that he “never took advantage of the victim’s ‘feeble’ statur e, or otherwise exerted his own ‘athletic build’ on the victim by means of preying on the weak. Instead, it would appear that Whitfield simply gave instructions to the victim, whic h the victim then followed.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 8). This is merely a n attempt to shift the blame to where it does not belong: the victim. We cannot find anything redeeming about Whitfield’s character, such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent

e xamples of good behavior, which could suggest a downward revision of his
sentence. Stephenson v. State , 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). Accordingly, based on Whitfield’s character and the nature of the offense, his aggravated sentence was not inappropria te. 

### CONCLUSION
[12] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court’s imposition of an aggravated sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and Whitfield’s character.

[13] Affirmed.

[14] May, J. and Mathias, J. concur