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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

AMY D. GRINER GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Griner & Company Attorney General of Indiana 

Mishawaka, Indiana

ERIC P. BABBS

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

ROBERT G. BOLLMAN, JR., )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 20A03-1202-CR-100

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE ELKHART SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Stephen Bowers, Judge Pro Tem

Cause No. 20D02-1108-PC-92

September 28, 2012

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ROBB, Chief Judge
2

Case Summary and Issue

Robert Bollman, Jr., pleaded guilty to escape, a Class C felony, and was sentenced 

to the statutory maximum of eight years in prison. He raises one issue for our review, 

which we restate as whether his sentence is inappropriate based on the nature of the 

offense and his character. Concluding the sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

On May 23, 2011, Bollman was found guilty of two counts of check fraud and was 

sentenced to 730 days, with 545 days suspended. On July 1, while serving his 

commitment through a home detention program, Bollman failed a drug screen at the 

Elkhart County Work Release Facility. His case manager ordered him to remain in the 

lobby of the facility while a law enforcement officer was found to take him to Elkhart 

County Jail. Rather than wait and submit to detention, Bollman fled. He was 

subsequently apprehended by law enforcement.

On January 17, 2012, Bollman pleaded guilty to escape, a Class C felony, as part 

of an informal plea agreement that allowed him to avoid being charged as an habitual 

offender. At the time of the plea, Bollman was twenty-six years old and had a criminal 

record that included five prior felonies and seven prior misdemeanors. As a result of his 

prior convictions, Bollman had been given numerous opportunities for rehabilitation 

including a theft accountability program, probation, a victim offender reconciliation 

program, work release, a deferral program, and community corrections. He repeatedly 

violated the requirements of these rehabilitation programs. In 2011, Bollman was 

diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was prescribed medication. At the time of his 

escape, Bollman was under the influence of cocaine. Bollman’s previous offenses were 
3

mostly drug and alcohol related, and at his sentencing hearing, Bollman asked the trial 

court for help with his addictions. The trial court sentenced Bollman to eight years in the 

Department of Correction and recommended he receive addiction treatment while 

incarcerated. Bollman now appeals his sentence. Additional facts will be supplied as 

appropriate.

Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review

This court has authority to revise a sentence “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.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). In assessing the 

nature of the offense and character of the offender, we may look to any factors appearing 

in the record. Roney v. State, 872 N.E.2d 192, 206 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans denied. 

The burden is on the defendant to persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate. 

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

II. Bollman’s Sentence

Bollman’s eight-year sentence is the statutory maximum for a Class C felony. See

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 (providing a sentencing range of two to eight years for Class C 

felonies, with an advisory sentence of four years). Bollman contends this sentence is 

inappropriate. As to the nature of his offense, Bollman argues it does not warrant a 

maximum sentence because of the nonviolent, solitary, and spontaneous manner in which 

he committed it. When he fled custody, Bollman did not fight any officers, wield any 

weapon, damage any property, or otherwise harm anyone. Nor did he organize a 

premeditated, chaotic, and dangerous large-scale prison break. Bollman argues a 
4

maximum sentence is inappropriate because a conviction for escape could be based on 

substantially worse activity. 

That Bollman did not use a deadly weapon or inflict bodily injury on anyone is 

irrelevant to whether his sentence is inappropriate, as doing so would have elevated his 

offense to a Class B felony and consequently called for a harsher range of sentencing. 

Ind. Code § 35-44-3-5 (defining the crime of escape);1Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5 (providing 

a sentencing range of six to twenty years for Class B felonies, with an advisory sentence 

of ten years). As for whether a worse Class C felony escape could be imagined, “it will 

always be possible to identify or hypothesize a significantly more despicable scenario.” 

Buchanan v. State, 767 N.E.2d 967, 973 (Ind. 2002). “Although maximum sentences are 

ordinarily appropriate for the worst offenders, we refer generally to the class of offenses 

and offenders that warrant the maximum punishment. But such class encompasses a 

considerable variety of offenses and offenders.” Id. (emphasis in original). Thus, even if 

a worse Class C felony escape conviction could be imagined, this does not require that 

we conclude Bollman’s sentence is inappropriate. This is especially true where the 

character of the offender warrants the trial court’s sentence. 

As to the nature of Bollman’s character, the primary considerations from the 

record are his history of criminal behavior, his mental illness, and his drug addictions. 

Among the facts in the record, the significance of a criminal history “varies based on the 

gravity, nature and number of prior offenses as they relate to the current offense.” 

Wooley v. State, 716 N.E.2d 919, 929 n. 4 (Ind. 1999). In some cases, a defendant’s 

 

1 Although this section was recodified as Indiana Code section 35-44.1-3-4 as of July 1, 2012, this was the 

codification that applied to Bollman.
5

criminal history alone can be sufficient to warrant a maximum sentence. In Smith v. 

State, for example, the defendant’s maximum sentence was independently justified by a 

criminal record of four prior felonies and numerous misdemeanors over a span of twenty 

years. 839 N.E.2d 780, 788 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). In this case, Bollman accumulated five 

felonies and seven misdemeanors in only eight years, and his felony convictions were all 

for crimes of dishonesty. Often in lieu of incarceration, Bollman was given repeated 

opportunities for rehabilitation, but has been consistently uncooperative and unable to 

abide by the requirements of such rehabilitative programs. Taken as a whole, Bollman’s 

criminal history reveals an alarming disrespect for the rule of law.

Bollman argues his severe criminal history is mitigated by his drug addictions and 

mental health issues. However, Bollman was not diagnosed with his mental illness until 

2011 and it is unclear whether, if at all, his criminal history was tied to a developing 

mental illness. Bollman has never received substantial treatment for his drug or alcohol 

addictions, but he has been prescribed medication for bipolar disorder prior to this 

offense. Although Bollman pleaded guilty and saved the State time and resources, this is 

offset by the fact that his plea was part of an unofficial bargain that prevented him from 

being sentenced to four to twelve additional years in prison as an habitual offender. See 

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(h). While Bollman admitted his guilt and asked the court for help 

in overcoming his addictions, his apparent remorse and request for help are undermined 

by a history of crimes of dishonesty and abuse of rehabilitation opportunities. We cannot 

conclude that Bollman’s eight-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his 

offense and his character.
6

Conclusion

Given Bollman’s criminal history and repeated disregard for rehabilitative services 

offered to him, we conclude that Bollman’s sentence is not inappropriate in light of the 

nature of his offense and character, and we therefore affirm the trial court’s sentence.

Affirmed. 

BAKER, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.