Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Aug 08 2013, 5:21 am
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:
ZACHARY A. WITTE GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
ANGELA N. SANCHEZ
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
REGINALD D. BAKER, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 02A05-1301-CR-32
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Wendy W. Davis, Judge
Cause No. 02D06-1208-FD-1143
August 8, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NAJAM, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Reginald D. Baker appeals his three-year aggregate sentence following his
convictions for domestic battery, as a Class D felony, and strangulation, as a Class D
felony, following a bench trial. Baker raises a single issue for our review, namely,
whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his
character. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 11, 2012, Baker verbally abused his girlfriend, C.B., with whom he
lived, accusing her of infidelity. C.B.’s fourteen-year-old daughter, T.B., heard the abuse
and tried to intervene. But Baker was not deterred and proceeded to physically abuse
C.B. Among other things, Baker strangled C.B., and he repeatedly punched the side of
her head. C.B. later testified that her throat and face hurt for several days following the
attack.
On August 16, the State charged Baker with domestic battery and strangulation,
each as a Class D felony. Following a bench trial in December, the court found Baker
guilty as charged. The court ordered Baker to serve three years, with two and one-half
years executed, on each count, to run concurrently for an aggregate term of three years
with two and one-half years executed. This appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Baker argues that his sentence is inappropriate. Although a trial court may have
acted within its lawful discretion in determining a sentence, Article VII, Sections 4 and 6
of the Indiana Constitution “authorize[] independent appellate review and revision of a
2
sentence imposed by the trial court.” Roush v. State, 875 N.E.2d 801, 812 (Ind. Ct. App.
2007) (alteration original). This appellate authority is implemented through Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B). Id. Revision of a sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B) requires the
appellant to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his
offense and his character. See Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B); Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d
867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We assess the trial court’s recognition or non-recognition
of aggravators and mitigators as an initial guide to determining whether the sentence
imposed was inappropriate. Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
However, “a defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met
th[e] inappropriateness standard of review.” Roush, 875 N.E.2d at 812 (alteration
original).
Moreover, “sentencing is principally a discretionary function in which the trial
court’s judgment should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d
1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008). Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor
an appropriate sentence to the circumstances presented. See id. at 1224. The principal
role of appellate review is to attempt to “leaven the outliers.” Id. at 1225. Whether we
regard a sentence as inappropriate at the end of the day turns on “our sense of the
culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and
myriad other facts that come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224.
Baker’s three-year aggregate sentence is not inappropriate. Baker verbally and
physically abused C.B. such that she was in pain for several days afterward, and he did so
in front of C.B.’s minor daughter, who had attempted to intervene and break-up Baker’s
3
attack on C.B. Here, Baker was convicted of two felonies. Baker’s criminal history
consists of six prior convictions since 1998: one prior felony conviction for possession of
a controlled substance, and five prior misdemeanors, including a prior conviction for
domestic battery against C.B. And he admitted at sentencing that he regularly uses
marijuana. While Baker’s military service between 1989 and 1993 is commendable, it
does not negate his character over the last twenty years. In light of the nature of the
offenses and his character, we cannot say that Baker’s three-year sentence, with two and
one-half years executed, is inappropriate.
Affirmed.
MATHIAS, J., and BROWN, J., concur.
4