Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1706-CR-1306 | September 21, 2017 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

Donald E.C. Leicht

Kokomo, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Jesse R. Drum

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Devan Lampe,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

September 21, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

34A02-1706-CR-1306

Appeal from the Howard Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Lynn Murray,

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

34C01-1602-F2-34

Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1706-CR-1306 | September 21, 2017 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary

[1] Appellant-Defendant Devan Lampe was released from incarceration on 

December 11, 2015. A few days later, during the early morning hours of 

December 14, 2015, Lampe and his friend James Wimmer broke into a home 

with the intent to steal from the home’s occupants. Once inside the home, 

Wimmer forced the female occupant of the home into the bedroom closet and 

forcibly raped her while Lampe confined the male occupant to the living room 

by holding a gun to his head. Once the rape was complete, Lampe forced the 

male occupant into the closet with the female occupant.

[2] On February 2, 2016, Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (“the State”) 

charged Lampe with one count of Level 2 felony burglary and two courts of 

Level 3 felony criminal confinement. Lampe subsequently pled guilty to one 

count of Level 3 felony burglary. In exchange for Lampe’s guilty plea, the State 

agreed to dismiss the remaining counts. Following a sentencing hearing, the 

trial court sentenced Lampe to a sixteen-year term of incarceration. Lampe 

appeals, arguing that his sentence is inappropriate. Because we conclude 

otherwise, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Lampe began abusing alcohol and drugs when he was approximately eleven or 

twelve years old. Since that time, Lampe has continued to abuse drugs and has

committed numerous criminal acts. Lampe was released from incarceration in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1706-CR-1306 | September 21, 2017 Page 3 of 6

relation to one of these criminal acts on Friday, December 11, 2015. By the 

following Sunday, Lampe had spent all of his money on drugs. In an attempt 

to acquire additional money with which they could purchase drugs, Lampe and 

Wimmer decided to rob the victims. 

[4] During the early morning hours of December 14, 2015, Lampe and Wimmer 

broke into the victims’ home. Upon entering the home, Wimmer forced the 

female victim into a bedroom closet while Lampe confined her husband to the 

living room by holding a gun to his head. Once in the closet, Wimmer forcibly 

raped the female victim. After the rape was completed, Lampe forced the male 

victim into the closet with his wife.

[5] On February 2, 2016, the State charged Lampe with one count of Level 2 felony 

burglary and two courts of Level 3 felony criminal confinement. On April 26, 

2017, Lampe pled guilty to one count of Level 3 felony burglary. In exchange 

for Lampe’s guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining counts. In 

connection to the plea, the Howard County Probation Department 

recommended a sixteen-year sentence, with fourteen years of incarceration and 

two years suspended to probation. On May 31, 2017, the trial court accepted 

Lampe’s guilty plea and sentenced him to a sixteen-year term of incarceration.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Lampe contends that his sixteen-year sentence is inappropriate. In challenging 

the appropriateness of his sentence, Lampe asserts that the trial court should 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1706-CR-1306 | September 21, 2017 Page 4 of 6

have ordered that a portion of his sixteen-year sentence been suspended to 

probation, arguing “[w]ithout a period of Supervised Probation, society will not 

have done all it could do for Lampe and for any future [victims].” Appellant’s 

Br. p. 13. We disagree.

[7] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “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.” In analyzing such claims, we “‘concentrate 

less on comparing the facts of [the case at issue] to others, whether real or 

hypothetical, and more on focusing on the nature, extent, and depravity of the 

offense for which the defendant is being sentenced, and what it reveals about 

the defendant’s character.’” Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2008) (quoting Brown v. State, 760 N.E.2d 243, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. 

denied). The defendant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is 

inappropriate. Sanchez v. State, 891 N.E.2d 174, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[8] With respect to the nature of Lampe’s offense, Lampe acknowledges that his 

criminal acts were serious but argues that the pain caused to his victim “was not 

the most horrible ‘physical pain’ imaginable.” Appellant’s Br. p. 11. Lampe 

supports this argument by asserting that “[t]here is no evidence that [the victim] 

was murdered, tortured, burned alive, doused with acid, [or] brutalized multiple 

times over many hours or days.” Appellant’s App. p. 11. Upon breaking into 

the victims’ home during the early morning hours, Wimmer forcibly raped the 

female victim in her bedroom closet while Lampe confined her husband by 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1706-CR-1306 | September 21, 2017 Page 5 of 6

holding a gun to his head. After the rape was completed, Lampe forced the 

male victim into the closet with his wife. We find these actions to be atrocious 

and reject Lampe’s attempt to minimize the serious nature of these actions by 

pointing out that the pain suffered by the victims could have, theoretically, been 

worse. 

[9] As for Lampe’s character, the record reveals that Lampe has an extensive 

criminal history which includes several juvenile adjudications, prior 

misdemeanor and felony convictions, and prior probation violations. Lampe’s 

juvenile adjudications include adjudications for actions which would have 

constituted the following criminal offenses if committed by an adult: multiple 

adjudications for battery resulting in bodily injury, criminal mischief with 

damage, theft, and pointing a firearm. Another juvenile adjudication for 

receiving stolen property was dismissed after Lampe successfully completed 

court-ordered programing and paid restitution. As an adult, Lampe has 

amassed a criminal history which includes the following misdemeanor 

convictions: conversion, public intoxication, disorderly conduct, resisting law 

enforcement. In addition, his criminal history includes a conviction for Level 6 

felony possession of precursors with the intent to manufacture 

methamphetamine. Lampe’s criminal history also includes prior probation 

violations. 

[10] While incarcerated in the instant matter awaiting sentencing, Lampe received 

approximately fourteen disciplinary “write-ups” and has been found guilty of at 

least twelve of these disciplinary violations. Appellant’s App. Vol. IV –
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1706-CR-1306 | September 21, 2017 Page 6 of 6

Confidential, p. 12. Further, the pre-sentence investigation completed prior to 

sentencing found that Lampe is a “VERY HIGH” risk to reoffend. Appellant’s 

App. Vol. IV – Confidential, p. 15. This finding is especially troubling 

considering that Lampe committed the criminal acts at issue in this case fewer

than five days after being released from incarceration. Lampe’s actions, 

considered with his criminal history, demonstrate that Lampe has not only a 

disdain for the criminal justice system, but also a disdain for the rights and 

safety of others. As such, we conclude that Lampe has failed to prove that his 

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

[11] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

May, J., and Barnes, J., concur.