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

Brian A. Karle

Ball Eggleston, PC

Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

George P. Sherman

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Darrell A. Williams,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

November 7, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

79A04-1602-CR-410

Appeal from the Tippecanoe 

Superior Court.

The Honorable Randy J. Williams, 

Judge.

Cause No. 79D01-1206-FC-27

Sharpnack, Senior Judge

Statement of the Case

[1] Darrell A. Williams appeals the sentence the trial court imposed upon his 

convictions of operating a motor vehicle after lifetime forfeiture of driving 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1602-CR-410 | November 7, 2016 Page 1 of 7
privileges, a Class C felony, and failure to stop after an accident resulting in 

property damage, a Class C misdemeanor. We affirm.

Issue

[2] Williams raises one issue, which we restate as: whether his sentence is 

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

offender.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On May 5, 2012, Williams was involved in an automobile accident with 

another driver in Tippecanoe County. His vehicle, a rental, struck the other 

vehicle and damaged the “entire driver’s side” of the other vehicle. Appellant’s 

App. p. 16. Williams later told the other driver that he had swerved to miss a 

pothole. The other driver informed Williams that she had called the police, and 

he drove away at a high rate of speed.

[4] A witness followed Williams and took a picture of his license plate. The police 

used the photo to trace the vehicle to a rental car company, and the company’s 

records indicated Williams had rented the vehicle that day.

[5] Later, Williams called the police and admitted he had been involved in the 

accident, but he claimed the other driver had struck him. An officer checked 

Williams’ information in the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles’ database and 

discovered that Williams’ driving privileges had been suspended for life.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1602-CR-410 | November 7, 2016 Page 2 of 7
[6] In June 2012, the State charged Williams with operating a motor vehicle after 

lifetime forfeiture of driving privileges and failure to stop after an accident 

resulting in property damage. Williams requested a jury trial, and the court 

issued subpoenas and summoned potential jurors. The State filed jury 

instructions with the court.

[7] On March 5, 2013, the morning of trial, Williams pleaded guilty as charged

after a jury had been selected. After several continuances, Williams failed to 

appear at a bond revocation hearing and a sentencing hearing in June 2013, and 

the court issued a warrant for his arrest. In August 2015, Williams’ attorney at 

the time advised the court that Williams had been arrested in Chicago, Illinois, 

due to the court’s warrant. The trial court arranged to have Williams returned 

to Tippecanoe County for sentencing.

[8] The trial court sentenced Williams to an aggregate sentence of five years, of 

which two are to be served in the Indiana Department of Correction, one in the 

Tippecanoe County Community Corrections program, and two on probation. 

The court further directed that Williams would serve the sentences 

consecutively to a pending sentence in another case.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Williams claims his sentence is too long and asks that it be reduced to four 

years. The State asserts the sentence is proper due to Williams’ criminal 

history. In general, sentencing decisions are left to the sound discretion of the 

trial court and are reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. Anglemyer v. 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1602-CR-410 | November 7, 2016 Page 3 of 7
State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (2007). 

Even when a trial court has acted within its discretion, this Court may review 

and revise sentences pursuant to Article seven, section six of the Indiana 

Constitution. Id. at 491. The authority to review and revise sentences is 

implemented through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which states: “The 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.”

[10] The purpose of sentencing review under Appellate Rule 7(B) is to leaven the 

outliers rather than to implement what we may perceive to be a “correct”

sentence. Gibson v. State, 43 N.E.3d 231, 241 (Ind. 2015), cert. denied, 85 

U.S.L.W. 3140 (Oct. 3, 2016). Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately 

turns on 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. 

Keller v. State, 987 N.E.2d 1099, 1122 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. When 

reviewing a sentence under Rule 7(B), we may consider all aspects of the penal 

consequences imposed by the trial court, including whether a portion of the 

sentence was suspended. Id. Williams bears the burden of persuading us that 

his sentence is inappropriate. Id. at 1121.

[11] We start with Williams’ sentence. At the time Williams committed his 

offenses, the maximum sentence for a Class C felony was eight years, the 

minimum sentence was two years, and the advisory sentence was four years. 

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 (2014). The maximum sentence for a Class C 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1602-CR-410 | November 7, 2016 Page 4 of 7
misdemeanor was sixty days. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-4 (1978). The trial court 

sentenced Williams to five years for his Class C felony conviction, of which two

years are to be served in the Department of Correction, one year in community 

corrections, and two years on probation. The court further sentenced Williams 

to sixty days on the Class C misdemeanor, to be served concurrently with the 

felony sentence. Thus, Williams’ aggregate sentence is only one year longer 

than the advisory sentence for the Class C felony.

[12] Turning to the nature of the offenses, Williams fled even though it was obvious 

he had substantially damaged the other driver’s vehicle. Williams argues he is 

entitled to some credit because he called the police to discuss his role in the 

accident. We disagree, because Williams attempted to blame the other driver 

for the accident even though the other driver and a witness told police Williams 

had steered his vehicle into the other vehicle.

[13] As for the character of the offender, Williams, who was thirty-four years old in 

2013, has a lengthy criminal history. Beginning in 1997, and continuing until

the date of these crimes, Williams accrued ten misdemeanor convictions and 

four felony convictions. The misdemeanor convictions include three counts of 

operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, two counts of driving while 

suspended, one count of operating a vehicle while never receiving a license, 

disorderly conduct, false informing, and possession of marijuana. Williams has 

felony convictions for burglary, operating while intoxicated with a prior 

conviction, operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic offender, and resisting law 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1602-CR-410 | November 7, 2016 Page 5 of 7
enforcement. Williams was unable to go more than two or three years without 

committing a new offense.

[14] Williams claims his current conviction of operating a motor vehicle after 

lifetime forfeiture of driving privileges is based on his prior motor vehiclerelated convictions, and it is inappropriate to consider those convictions in

support of an enhanced sentence in this case. We disagree. When reviewing 

the sentence with respect to the character of the offender, we engage in a broad 

consideration of a defendant’s qualities. Williams v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1205, 1211 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Williams’ numerous convictions for motor vehiclerelated offenses demonstrate an absolute unwillingness to comply with the law. 

In any event, Williams’ other convictions also indicate that he chooses not to 

change his criminal conduct despite being given numerous opportunities.

[15] Williams was on probation when he committed his current crimes. In addition, 

courts have revoked Williams’ probation on two prior occasions. Finally, a 

court revoked Williams’ sentence on community corrections in one case, and in 

another case community corrections refused to accept him at all. In the current 

case, Williams plead guilty but then left the state for over two years, remaining 

at liberty until he was arrested. Williams’ flight is further proof of his disregard 

for the law.

[16] Williams points to his guilty plea as proof of his positive qualities, but the 

evidence against him was extensive. Moreover, he did not plead guilty until the 

day of trial, after significant resources had been expended by the trial court and 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1602-CR-410 | November 7, 2016 Page 6 of 7
both parties and the jury had been assembled. Under these circumstances, 

Williams has failed to demonstrate that his aggravated sentence is 

inappropriate.

Conclusion

[17] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[18] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1602-CR-410 | November 7, 2016 Page 7 of 7