Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-577 | October 4, 2017 Page 1 of 7

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

Hilary Bowe Ricks

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Tyler G. Banks

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kennan Dumas,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

October 4, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A04-1703-CR-577

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Alicia Gooden, 

Judge

The Honorable Richard 

Hagenmaier, Commissioner

Trial Court Cause No.

49G21-1610-F4-41901

Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-577 | October 4, 2017 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] Kennan Dumas appeals the twelve-year sentence imposed by the trial court

after a jury convicted him of level 4 felony possession of a firearm as a serious 

violent felon. He contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offense and his character. Concluding that he has not met his 

burden to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On October 23, 2016, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) 

Officer Samuel House was dispatched to an address on North Grant Avenue in 

response to a report of “a person assaulted with shots fired.” Tr. at 109-10. 

When Officer House arrived, he encountered Michael Bennett sitting on the 

front porch of the residence. Based on his conversation with Bennett, Officer 

House determined that there was another individual with whom he needed to 

speak. Officer House walked around the left side of the residence to a side 

entrance with a separate address written on it. The other individual Officer 

House was looking for was not present at the residence, so Officer House told 

Bennett to call if there were “any other issues or if the individual comes back.” 

Id. at 111. Officer House then left the scene. 

[3] A few hours later, at approximately 3:50 a.m., IMPD Officer Brian Sosbe was 

dispatched to the same address on a “disturbance call.” Id. at 117-18. Officer 

Sosbe was aware that there had been a previous report that morning of shots 

fired at that address. Officer Sosbe encountered two men sitting on the front 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-577 | October 4, 2017 Page 3 of 7

porch. As he was speaking to those men, Officer Sosbe heard the sound of a 

door slamming on the left side of the residence. When Officer Sosbe walked 

around the left side of the residence, he saw a man, later identified as Dumas, in 

the side yard. Officer Sosbe activated the flashlight attached to his firearm, 

identified himself, and ordered Dumas to stop and show his hands. 

[4] Dumas briefly raised his hands above his waist, but then “immediately turned 

and ran to the door” on the left side of the residence and went inside. Id. at 

123. Dumas slammed the door and locked the deadbolt behind him. Officer 

Sosbe heard a “loud thud” that “sounded like a heavy metallic object hitting the 

floor” just inside the door. Id. at 124. Because Officer Sosbe “took the sound 

of that thud being a gun,” he backed slowly away from the door, assumed a 

defensive position, and called for backup. Id. at 125. 

[5] About a minute later, Dumas exited the residence and Officer Sosbe placed him 

in handcuffs. Noticing that there was also a female just inside the door, Officer 

Sosbe ordered her to come outside. While Dumas was handcuffed on the 

ground, he yelled repeatedly to the female, “Don’t talk to them. Don’t tell them 

nothing. Don’t let them in the house.” Id. at 126. Officers discovered that the 

female, Breanna Benner, was the owner of the residence. While on the scene, 

Benner signed a consent to search form after being advised of her rights. 

During a search of the residence, officers discovered two handguns underneath 

a metal grate just inside the door. Dumas had a prior conviction for class B 

felony dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug, so it was illegal for him to possess 

a firearm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-577 | October 4, 2017 Page 4 of 7

[6] The State charged Dumas with level 4 felony possession of a firearm as a 

serious violent felon, level 5 felony battery, and level 6 felony criminal 

recklessness. The State later dismissed two of the charges and a jury trial 

proceeded on the level 4 felony. The jury found Dumas guilty as charged.1

Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced Dumas to twelve years, with four 

years suspended, two of which were to be served on probation. This appeal 

ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Dumas claims that his sentence is inappropriate and invites this Court to revise

his sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that we 

may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the 

trial court’s decision, we find that the sentence “is inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” The defendant bears 

the burden to persuade this Court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. 

Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Indiana’s flexible 

sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate sentence to the 

circumstances presented, and the trial court’s judgment “should receive 

considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008). 

The principal role of appellate review is to attempt to “leaven the outliers.” Id. 

at 1225. Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate at the end of the day 

turns on “our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, 

 

1 Dumas stipulated to having a prior class B felony conviction for dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-577 | October 4, 2017 Page 5 of 7

the damage done to others, and myriad other facts that come to light in a given 

case.” Id. at 1224. We consider all aspects of the penal consequences imposed 

by the trial court in sentencing the defendant, including whether a portion of 

the sentence is ordered suspended “or otherwise crafted using any of the variety 

of sentencing tools available to the trial judge.” Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 

1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010). In conducting our review, we do not look to see 

whether the defendant’s sentence is appropriate or “if another sentence might 

be more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is 

inappropriate.” Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

[8] Regarding the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting point 

that the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime 

committed. Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014). The sentencing range 

for a level 4 felony is between two and twelve years, with the advisory sentence 

being six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5. The trial court here imposed the 

maximum sentence of twelve years, with four years suspended.

[9] Dumas complains that he should not have received the maximum sentence for 

his crime because, although he did unlawfully possess weapons, he never 

“openly” displayed a weapon “on his person.” Appellant’s Br. at 15. He also 

posits that by exiting the residence and succumbing to Officer Sosbe’s demands, 

he avoided creating a “SWAT situation.” Id. However, the record indicates 

that Dumas is not simply a defendant with a prior felony conviction who had 

the misfortune of being found in unlawful possession of a firearm. Rather, after 

being confronted by Officer Sosbe, Dumas initially fled and retreated into the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-577 | October 4, 2017 Page 6 of 7

residence to hide his weapons. When Dumas later exited the residence, he 

belligerently yelled to Benner to not allow police to search the home. We are 

not persuaded that the nature of this offense warrants a sentence reduction.

[10] In any event, Dumas’s character alone supports the sentence imposed by the 

trial court. When considering the character of the offender, one relevant fact is 

the defendant’s criminal history. Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 844 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2017). Dumas has an extensive criminal history, including numerous 

juvenile adjudications, six prior felony convictions, and several prior 

misdemeanor convictions. He has been granted the leniency of probation on 

numerous occasions, only to have that probation revoked multiple times. 

Indeed, he was on probation when he committed the current offense. Dumas’s 

refusal to alter his criminal behavior reflects poorly on his character. 

[11] Nevertheless, Dumas emphasizes evidence of his past substance abuse and 

asserts that the trial court should have recommended his placement in

“Purposeful Incarceration so [that he] could begin working on his addictions 

and the underlying issues that feed[] them....” Appellant’s Br. at 17. This

Court has recognized that it is quite difficult for a defendant to prevail on a 

claim that the placement of his sentence is inappropriate. Fonner, 876 N.E.2d at 

343. “As a practical matter, trial courts know the feasibility of alternative 

placements in particular counties or communities.” Id. That is, “a trial court is 

aware of the availability, costs, and entrance requirements of community 

corrections placements in a specific locale.” Id. at 343-44. Moreover, because 

our appellate review is focused not on whether another sentence might be more 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1703-CR-577 | October 4, 2017 Page 7 of 7

appropriate, but on whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate, a 

“defendant challenging the placement of a sentence must convince us that the 

given placement is itself inappropriate.” Id. at 344. Here, rather than placing 

Dumas in Purposeful Incarceration, the trial court ordered substance-abuse 

treatment as a condition of Dumas’s probation to be completed following his 

eight-year executed sentence. Dumas has not demonstrated that this placement 

is itself inappropriate.2 

[12] Dumas has not met his burden to demonstrate that the sentence imposed by the 

trial court is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense or his character. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

[13] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.

 

2 We note that the presentence investigation report indicates that Dumas does not believe that he has a 

substance abuse problem. Appellant’s Conf. App. at 131.