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, Jan 31 2014, 9:05 am
collateral estoppel, or the law of the
case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
ERIC D. BLACKMAN GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Kendallville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
RICHARD C. WEBSTER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
CHRISTIAN D. REYES, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 57A03-1305-CR-176
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE NOBLE SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Robert E. Kirsch, Judge
Cause No. 57D01-1204-FA-3
January 31, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BARNES, Judge
Case Summary
Christian Reyes appeals his sentence for Class B felony burglary. We affirm.
Issue
Reyes 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
On April 9, 2012, eighteen-year-old Reyes, who was suspended from high school
for fighting, was picked up by three friends. Reyes had not told his parents that he was
suspended, and he told his mother that he was going to school.1 In the van, the men
started talking about burglarizing a house. Eventually, they entered A.S.’s house, put ski
masks on, and started taking items from the house. A.S. was home from school because
he was sick and was asleep in his bed. Reyes and his friends kicked open A.S.’s bedroom
door, and A.S. chased the men out of the house. The men got into their van, and A.S.
was holding the door handle, trying to open the door. As the vehicle drove away, A.S.
fell, injuring his knees, elbow, and hand.
The State charged Reyes with Class A felony burglary resulting in bodily injury.
Reyes pled guilty to Class B felony burglary. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court
found that Reyes’s young age, lack of a prior criminal history, his good family, and the
fact that he was likely to be deported were mitigators. The trial court found the fact that
Reyes directed his friends to the neighborhood and the fact that the victim was injured
1
Reyes claimed during the sentencing hearing that he was not suspended at that time and that he was
skipping school with his friends.
2
were aggravators. The trial court sentenced him to ten years with two years suspended to
probation. Reyes now appeals.
Analysis
Reyes argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense
and the character of the offender. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) 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. When considering whether a sentence is inappropriate,
we need not be “extremely” deferential to a trial court’s sentencing decision. Rutherford
v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Still, we must give due consideration
to that decision. Id. We also understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial
court brings to its sentencing decisions. Id. Under this rule, the burden is on the
defendant to persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate.
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
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. 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
3
portion of the sentence was suspended. Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind.
2010).
The nature of the offense is that eighteen-year-old Reyes and three of his friends
burglarized a house, stole items, and injured a teen resident of the house when he chased
them. Reyes points out that the victim’s injuries were minimal and that the victim was
not “terrified” by the burglary. Tr. p. 62. However, the victim also testified that he was
“traumatized” by the incident but “you learn to live on.” Id.
As for the character of the offender, the record indicates that this was Reyes’s first
criminal offense and that he expressed remorse. Although Reyes pled guilty, he obtained
a significant benefit as a result of the guilty plea because he was facing a Class B felony
rather than a Class A felony. See Sensback v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1160, 1165 (Ind. 1999).
Reyes indicated that he was depressed over his immigration status. One of his teachers
indicated that, although Reyes hung out with the wrong crowd at school, wore gang
colors, “talked-the-talk,” and “had a chip on his shoulder,” he had a desire to learn, was a
curious student, and “was a good kid and student.” App. p. 61.
The trial court imposed the advisory sentence of ten years and suspended two
years to probation. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5. Although Reyes requests that we revise
his executed sentence to less than eight years, we must give due consideration to the trial
court’s decision. Given the home invasion-type burglary, we cannot say that the sentence
imposed by the trial court is inappropriate.
4
Conclusion
The sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender. We affirm.
Affirmed.
ROBB, J., and BROWN, J., concur.
5