MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Sep 19 2018, 10:18 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
Donald C. Swanson, Jr. Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Henry A. Flores, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Derek A. Saylor, September 19, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-528
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable John F. Surbeck,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Jr., Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
02D06-1706-F5-164
Friedlander, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-528 | September 19, 2018 Page 1 of 5
[1] Derek Saylor appeals the sentence he received upon his conviction of criminal
1
recklessness as a Level 5 felony. We affirm.
[2] Saylor presents two issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing
Saylor by not entering a sentencing statement.
2. Whether Saylor’s sentence is inappropriate.
[3] In June 2017, Saylor went to the residence of Jamie Lantz, his ex-girlfriend, to
pay her for some damage he had previously caused to her vehicle. When he
arrived, Lantz’s current boyfriend exited the residence, and Saylor began
shooting at him. When Saylor had emptied the bullets from that gun, he
obtained another gun from someone in a vehicle that had arrived at the
residence after him. Armed with the second gun, Saylor resumed shooting at
Lantz’s residence, and an individual in the vehicle began firing a gun at Lantz’s
residence as well. Saylor then left. The gunshots caused damage to both
Lantz’s residence and the residence behind hers. Based upon this incident,
Saylor was charged with two counts of criminal recklessness as Level 5 felonies
and two counts of criminal recklessness as Level 6 felonies. He pleaded guilty
to one Level 5 felony, and the State dismissed the remaining charges. The trial
court sentenced Saylor to three years at the Department of Correction.
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-2 (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-528 | September 19, 2018 Page 2 of 5
[4] Saylor first contends the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him by
not entering a sentencing statement that he alleges is required for sentencing in
all felony cases.
[5] Saylor pleaded guilty to a Level 5 felony which has an advisory sentence of
three years. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 (b) (2014). The trial court sentenced
Saylor on February 9, 2018 to a three-year term of imprisonment. Effective
July 1, 2014, a trial court is no longer required to issue a sentencing statement
when imposing the advisory sentence for a felony conviction. See Ind. Code §
35-38-1-1.3 (2014) (“After a court has pronounced a sentence for a felony
conviction, the court shall issue a statement of the court’s reasons for selecting
the sentence that it imposes unless the court imposes the advisory sentence for the
felony.”) (emphasis added). Thus, the court was not required to issue a
statement of its reasons for selecting the advisory sentence for Saylor;
accordingly, there was no error.
[6] Saylor also argues that his sentence is inappropriate. Particularly, he challenges
the appropriateness of his placement in the DOC; he claims the appropriate
sentence is the advisory sentence, fully suspended to probation.
[7] Although a trial court may have acted within its lawful discretion in imposing a
sentence, article VII, section 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorizes this Court
to review and revise sentences. This authority is implemented through Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that we may revise a sentence authorized
by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we determine
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-528 | September 19, 2018 Page 3 of 5
that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender. Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
The defendant bears the burden of persuading the appellate court that his or her
sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006).
[8] The location where a sentence is to be served is an appropriate focus for
application of our review and revise authority. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265
(Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Nonetheless, we note that it will be difficult for a
defendant to prevail on a claim that the placement of his or her sentence is
inappropriate. Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “This is
because the question under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence
is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is
inappropriate.” King, 894 N.E.2d at 268. Moreover, a defendant challenging
the placement of a sentence must convince us that the given placement is itself
inappropriate. Fonner, 876 N.E.2d 340.
[9] To assess whether the sentence is inappropriate, we look first to the statutory
range established for the class of the offense. Here, the offense is a Level 5
felony, for which the advisory sentence is three years, with a minimum sentence
of one year and a maximum of six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6. As discussed
above, Saylor was sentenced to the advisory term of three years.
[10] Next, we look to the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. As
to the nature of the current offense, we note that Saylor endangered numerous
people by shooting a handgun at Lantz’s boyfriend and at inhabited homes in a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-528 | September 19, 2018 Page 4 of 5
residential area. Moreover, he was not content to fire all the bullets in one
handgun but instead was prepared with a second loaded gun and, literally, a
partner-in-crime who fired at Lantz’s boyfriend and residence as well.
[11] With regard to the character of the offender, we observe that Saylor has no
juvenile adjudications but appears to have had some contact with the juvenile
system. He has no adult criminal history. At the time of the offense, Saylor
was employed, and he pleaded guilty to the offense.
[12] Although forty-year-old Saylor lacks a criminal history, this offense was quite
dangerous for those involved, as well as innocent bystanders in nearby
residences. Saylor has not convinced us that his placement in the DOC is
inappropriate.
[13] Judgment affirmed.
May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-528 | September 19, 2018 Page 5 of 5