Ddrea Wayne Bostic v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Dec 10 2019, 10:41 am

the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK Indiana Supreme Court estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Andrew R. Falk Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Hendricks County Public Defender’s Attorney General of Indiana Office Danville, Indiana Josiah Swinney Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ddrea Wayne Bostic, December 10, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-1383 v. Appeal from the Hendricks Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Stephenie LeMay- Appellee-Plaintiff. Luken, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 32D05-1904-F6-415

Bradford, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1383 | December 10, 2019 Page 1 of 5

Case Summary [1] In May of 2019, Ddrea Wayne Bostic pled guilty to Level 6 felony resisting law

enforcement after leading officers on a bi-county automobile chase. In

exchange for Bostic’s plea, the State agreed to dismiss other charges. The trial

court accepted Bostic’s plea and sentenced him to serve 750 days in the

Hendricks County Jail (the “Jail”). Bostic appeals, arguing that his placement

in the Jail is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character.

We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On April 29, 2019, Bostic fled from federal placement in a halfway house.

Bostic was eastbound on U.S. Route 36 in Hendricks County when Avon

Police Officer Alexander Howell attempted to pull him over for a traffic

violation. At the time, Officer Howell was driving a fully marked police vehicle

and had activated his emergency lights and siren. Bostic did not stop and fled

from Officer Howell, traveling into Marion County. Bostic entered and exited

I-465 twice before reentering Hendricks County and continued to flee despite

the police’s unsuccessful use of “stop sticks.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 11.

Bostic eventually stopped and was taken into custody. [3] The next day, the State charged Bostic with Level 6 felony resisting law

enforcement, Class C misdemeanor reckless driving, and Class C misdemeanor

operating a motor vehicle without ever receiving a license. Bostic entered into a

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1383 | December 10, 2019 Page 2 of 5

plea agreement, by the terms of which he would plead guilty to the Level 6

felony charge, the State would dismiss the remaining Class C misdemeanor

charges, and he would be sentenced to a term of 750 days. The plea agreement

indicated that a decision relating to placement would be left to the trial court.

The trial court accepted the plea agreement, entered judgment of conviction

against Bostic on the Level 6 felony charge, and ordered that he serve his 750-

day sentence in the Jail.

Discussion and Decision [4] Bostic contends that his executed 750-day sentence in inappropriate. Bostic

does not challenge the length of his sentence but argues that appropriate

placement would have been in community corrections rather than the Jail.

Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “The Court may revise a sentence

authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the

Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense

and the character of the offender.” In analyzing such claims, we “‘concentrate

less on comparing the facts of [the case at issue] to others, whether real or

hypothetical, and more on focusing on the nature, extent, and depravity of the

offense for which the defendant is being sentenced, and what it reveals about

the defendant’s character.’” Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct. App.

2008) (quoting Brown v. State, 760 N.E.2d 243, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans.

denied). The defendant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is

inappropriate. Sanchez v. State, 891 N.E.2d 174, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1383 | December 10, 2019 Page 3 of 5 [5] As for the nature of his offense, Bostic argues that his sentence is inappropriate

because his actions were not particularly egregious and “[h]e neither hurt

anyone nor was he intentionally trying to hurt anyone.” Appellant’s Br. p. 7.

While it is indeed fortunate that Bostic did not injure himself or anyone else

while fleeing from police, he undoubtedly endangered himself and others by

engaging in a bi-county automobile chase. This chase continued along both

city streets and the interstate, potentially placing numerous others in harm’s

way. [6] As for his character, the record reflects that Bostic was twenty-one when he

committed the instant criminal offense. At the time, he “was serving a federal

sentence that he got when he was eighteen (18). He had served time in a federal

penitentiary, was at a halfway house in Indianapolis.” Tr. p. 30. Bostic

engaged in the chase after absconding from federal placement in a halfway

house. Bostic acknowledges that he knew that he was under the control of the

federal government, arguing that he suffered a momentary lapse in judgment in

his attempt to eradicate himself from gang influence and the gang lifestyle to

which he had previously subjected himself. Bostic’s assertion that he was trying

to get away from negative influences and to improve his life does not negate the

fact that he led officers on a bi-county chase after failing to comply with a traffic

stop. We are unpersuaded by Bostic’s claim that the trial court should have

placed him in a minimally-restrictive placement given that he had recently

absconded from another minimally-restrictive placement. Bostic has failed to

convince us that his sentence is inappropriate.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1383 | December 10, 2019 Page 4 of 5 [7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1383 | December 10, 2019 Page 5 of 5