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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Sean C. Mullins

Crown Point, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

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 Case No.

45A03-1711-CR-2613

Appeal 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-old 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 containing $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 Level 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. Additional facts will be provided if necessary.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

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

was inappropriate in light of his character and the nature of the offense. He 

requests us to reduce his sentence 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 the 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 that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1711-CR-2613 | March 23, 2018 Page 4 of 6

his 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 

committed.” 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 six (6) years, 

with the advisory sentence being three (3) years.” I.C. § 35-50-2-6(b). Here, the 

trial court imposed an 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. denied. Looking at the 

circumstances before us, we note that Whitfield forced himself into the home of 

an elderly family 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 manipulating 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 Whitfield’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 amassed a criminal record, which includes at 

least eleven contacts with law enforcement. 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]. 

So 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 

credibility 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 pretrial 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 criminal 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 Whitfield’s argument that he “never took advantage

of the victim’s ‘feeble’ stature, 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, which the victim then 

followed.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 8). This is merely an 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 

examples 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 inappropriate. 

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