Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before Jun 27 2014, 9:26 am
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:
RICHARD WALKER GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
RICHARD C. WEBSTER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
CHARLES SWIFT, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 48A04-1309-CR-471
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MADISON CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable David A. Happe, Judge
Cause No. 48C04-1210-FB-1920
June 27, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BARNES, Judge
Case Summary
Charles Swift appeals his sentence for one count of Class B felony robbery and one
count Class C felony robbery. We affirm.
Issue
Swift raises one issue, which we restate as whether his twenty-five-year sentence is
inappropriate.
Facts
On October 10, 2012, eighty-five-year-old Marshall Needler was with his wife and
friends at the Hoosier Park casino in Madison County. Around 5:40 p.m. Needler went to
the restroom of the casino. While standing in the restroom, Needler’s neck was grabbed
from behind by a man later identified as Swift, who then pushed Neeler’s head down as far
as it would go. Swift grabbed Needler’s arm, told him not to look at his face, then spun
Needler into a stall across from the urinal. Swift removed Needler’s wallet from his front
pocket, pushed Needler to the floor, informed him not to come out of the restroom for five
minutes, and walked out of the restroom. Needler then reported the robbery to Hoosier
Park Security, who turned over the investigation to the Indiana Gaming Commission. The
Indiana Gaming Commission reviewed the surveillance recordings of the restroom and saw
Needler enter the restroom and then saw Swift enter shortly after. They then saw Swift
exit the restroom followed by Needler moments later.
On October 11, 2012, at approximately 8:15 p.m., eighty-five-year-old Reed
Cheesman entered the restroom of the Hoosier Park casino, followed by Swift. Swift
pressed Cheesman into the urinal causing Cheesman to tear his left arm open on the screws
2
holding up paneling between the urinals. Swift held him there, searched his pockets,
removed Cheesman’s silver money clip that contained approximately sixty dollars from
his front right pocket, and exited the restroom. Cheesman pursued Swift but was only able
to observe that he was wearing blue jeans and a light-colored top. Cheesman informed
security about what happened and received aid for his injuries to his arm. The Indiana
Gaming Commission apprehended Swift as he was leaving the casino and recovered
Cheesman’s money clip after conducting a search.
The state charged Swift with Class B felony robbery and Class C felony robbery. A
jury found him guilty as charged. At sentencing, Swift attributed his troubles to his
substance abuse problems and apologized. The trial court concluded that Swift prioritized
drugs over everything, had unsuccessfully completed previous substance abuse
opportunities, and deflected responsibility for his acts. The trial court sentenced Swift to
seven years imprisonment for Class C felony robbery, and eighteen years imprisonment
for Class B felony robbery, to be served consecutively. The trial court also ordered twenty
years of the sentence executed and five years of the sentence suspended to supervised
probation. Swift now appeals.
Analysis
We assess whether Swift’s twenty-five-year sentence is inappropriate under Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B) in light of his character and the nature of the offenses. See Anglemyer
v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007). Although Rule 7(B) does not require us to be
“extremely” deferential to a trial court’s sentencing decision, we still must give due
consideration to that decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App.
3
2007). We also understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its
sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a defendant bears the burden of persuading the
appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate.” Id.
The principal role of Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the outliers,
and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement
of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.”
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). We “should focus on the forest—
the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of
counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Id. Whether a sentence is
inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime,
the damage done to others, and the myriad of other factors that come to light in a given
case. Id. at 1224. When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence under Rule 7(B), we
may consider all aspects of the penal consequences imposed by the trial court in sentencing
the defendant, including whether a portion of the sentence was suspended. Davidson v.
State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010).
The nature of the offenses is that Swift made a decision to rob two eighty-five-year-
old men who were vulnerable in public restrooms. Both men were manhandled as Swift
forcibly removed Needler’s wallet and Cheesmans’s money clip, making his actions crimes
of violence. Needler was pushed to the floor, and Cheesman cut his arm when he was
shoved forward onto screws from the paneling between the urinals. The fact that Swift laid
in wait for elderly and vulnerable victims near restrooms over a two-day period adds to the
4
heinousness of the offenses. The nature of the offenses does not warrant a reduction of his
sentence.
As for his character, Swift’s criminal history reveals that he had three contacts with
the juvenile justice system, one resulting in a finding of delinquency for committing an act
that would have been a Class B felony burglary if committed as an adult. As an adult Swift
has multiple misdemeanor convictions including battery resulting in bodily injury,
operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and operating a vehicle while intoxicated
endangering a person. He has continually shown poor character as he also accumulated
felony convictions for operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic offender. Swift has been
granted probation and ordered to undergo substance abuse treatment previously, but he has
never completed the program and remains addicted to drugs. In light of the frequency of
the offenses, the age of the victims, and Swifts poor character, we find that his sentence is
appropriate even though we are mindful of Swift’s apology and admitted drug problem.
Conclusion
The twenty-five-year sentence is appropriate in light of the nature of the offenses
and the character of the offender. We affirm.
Affirmed.
BAKER, J., and CRONE, J., concur.
5