MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 10 2016, 8:45 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
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
Justin F. Roebel
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Tyron R. E. White, June 10, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
02A05-1511-CR-1872
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Frances C. Gull,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
02D04-1504-F6-284
Bradford, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1511-CR-1872 | June 10, 2016 Page 1 of 5
[1] On Mach 30, 2015, Fort Wayne Police Officer P. Bartrom went to Appellant-
Defendant Tyron White’s residence to serve a warrant. During the execution of
this warrant, White fled from officers which led to Bartrom being injured.
Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (“the State”) subsequently charged White
with Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement. White pled guilty and received a
two-and-a-half-year sentence. On appeal, White claims that his sentence was
inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On March 30, 2015, Fort Wayne Police Officer Bartrom went to White’s
residence to serve an arrest warrant. Officer Bartrom approached the rear of the
house while another officer went to the front. After hearing some commotion
from inside, Officer Bartrom saw White open the back door at which point
Officer Bartrom ordered him to stop. White attempted to flee and, as Officer
Bartrom attempted to follow him through the doorway, White shut the door,
causing Officer Bartrom’s right arm to break through one of the window panes
in the center of the door. Officer Bartrom suffered two large cuts to his right
forearm approximately two inches in length which began “rapidly bleeding.”
Appellant’s App. 22.
[3] On April 3, 2015, White was charged with Level 6 felony resisting law
enforcement, to which he pled guilty. On October 23, 2015, White was
sentenced to two-and-a-half years with one-and-a-half years executed and the
remaining year suspended to probation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1511-CR-1872 | June 10, 2016 Page 2 of 5
Discussion and Decision
[4] White contends that his two-and-a-half-year sentence is inappropriate in light of
the nature of his offense and his character. “Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)
empowers us to independently review and revise sentences authorized by
statute if, after due consideration, we find the trial court’s decision
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender.” Anderson v. State, 989 N.E.2d 823, 827 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans.
denied. “An appellant bears the burden of showing both prongs of the inquiry
favor revision of [his] sentence.” Id. (citing Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073,
1080 (Ind. 2006)). “We must give ‘deference to a trial court’s sentencing
decision, both because Rule 7(B) requires us to give due consideration to that
decision and because we understand and recognize the unique perspective a
trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.’” Gil v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1231,
1237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Trainor v. State, 950 N.E.2d 352, 355-56
(Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.).
[5] The nature of White’s offense does little to justify a revision of his sentence.
White intentionally slammed a door on Officer Bartrom, did so with enough
force that Bartrom’s arm broke through a window pane, and “continued to
push the door until it was shut with [Officer Bartrom’s] arm still stuck through
the window.” Appellant’s App. p. 77. The resulting injury was not minor and
far exceeded what was necessary to establish the “bodily injury” element of the
offense. Officer Bartrom received two large cuts which were “rapidly bleeding”
and left severe scars which were clearly visible six months later. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1511-CR-1872 | June 10, 2016 Page 3 of 5
[6] White’s character, as evidenced by his criminal history, also justifies his
enhanced sentence. “The significance of a criminal history in assessing a
defendant’s character and an appropriate sentence varies based on the gravity,
nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current offense.”
Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). White was just
twenty years old at the time of sentencing and had already accrued five juvenile
delinquency adjudications, three of which would have been felonies if
committed by an adult, including Class B felony arson. The remaining
adjudications were for battery and resisting law enforcement. Since reaching
adulthood, White has been convicted of misdemeanor domestic battery and
misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. White was released on bond for the
battery case when he committed the instant offense, and proceeded to commit
the misdemeanor resisting law enforcement while out on bond for the instant
offense. The current conviction is White’s fourth for resisting law enforcement
and shows that previous efforts at rehabilitation and leniency have done
nothing to reform his behavior. White argues that he was a contributing
member of society working two jobs and taking classes at IVY Tech. However,
the trial court noted that White quit both jobs seven months prior to the
sentencing hearing.
[7] We reiterate that the question under Appellate Rule 7(B) analysis is “not
whether another sentence is more appropriate” but “whether the sentence
imposed is inappropriate.” King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App.
2008). Based on White’s extensive criminal history in a relatively short period
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1511-CR-1872 | June 10, 2016 Page 4 of 5
of time and the severity of Officer Bartrom’s injuries, we cannot say that
White’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense or his
character.
[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Altice, concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1511-CR-1872 | June 10, 2016 Page 5 of 5