Akeem J. Bazley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 30 2020, 8:45 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Laura A. Raiman Curtis T. Hill, Jr. R. Patrick Magrath Attorney General of Indiana Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Tina L. Mann Madison, Indiana Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Akeem J. Bazley, December 30, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-1247 v. Appeal from the Bartholomew Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable James D. Worton, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 03D01-1912-F5-7260

Bailey, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1247 | December 30, 2020 Page 1 of 6

Case Summary [1] Akeem Bazley (“Bazley”) challenges his sentence, following a plea agreement,

for intimidation, as a Level 5 felony.1 The only issue he raises on appeal is

whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his

character. [2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] Bazley and S.B. were in a romantic relationship. On December 26, 2019,

Bazley drove to S.B.’s apartment and threatened that he would bang on S.B.’s

door if she did not come outside to see him. S.B.’s friend Donald Dyer

(“Dyer”) arrived and tried to convince Bazley to leave. Bazley bragged to Dyer

about having a .45 caliber handgun on his person and having outstanding

warrants. S.B. then decided to go out and talk to Bazley. When S.B. went

outside, Bazley charged at her, put his hands around her throat, pinned her

against the wall, and started choking her. Bazley then pulled out what

appeared to be a handgun but later was determined to be a BB gun. Bazley

placed the gun under S.B.’s chin and told her that he would kill her if necessary.

1 Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(a), (b)(2)(A).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1247 | December 30, 2020 Page 2 of 6

S.B. started screaming. S.B.’s roommate then came outside, and Bazley ran

away. [4] Dyer called the police who subsequently located Bazley at a residence where he

said he had been visiting family. Bazley also stated that he had not threatened

anyone with a firearm and did not possess a firearm. Police officers confirmed

that Bazley had outstanding warrants and then transported him to jail. The

officers subsequently located the BB gun in the yard where Bazley was arrested. [5] On December 27, 2019, the State charged Bazley with intimidation, as a Level

5 felony; strangulation, as a Level 6 felony;2 and domestic battery, as a Class A

misdemeanor.3 On May 4, 2020, Bazley pled guilty to the charge of Level 5

felony intimidation, and the State agreed to the dismissal of the other charges.

Sentencing was left to the trial court’s discretion. On June 3, the trial court

sentenced Bazley to four years in the Indiana Department of Correction. This

appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [6] Bazley contends that the sentence for his Level 5 felony intimidation conviction

is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Article 7,

Sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution “authorize[] independent appellate

2 I.C. § 35-42-2-9(c). 3 I.C. § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1247 | December 30, 2020 Page 3 of 6

review and revision of a sentence imposed by the trial court.” Roush v. State,

875 N.E.2d 801, 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (alteration in original). This

appellate authority is implemented through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Id.

Revision of a sentence under Rule 7(B) requires the appellant to demonstrate

that his sentence is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the

character of the offender.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B); see also Rutherford v. State,

866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). [7] Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate

sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court’s judgment “should

receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind.

2008). 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 factors that

come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224. The question is not whether another

sentence is more appropriate, but rather whether the sentence imposed is

inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] unless overcome by compelling evidence

portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by

restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant’s character (such as

substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson

v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1247 | December 30, 2020 Page 4 of 6 [8] We begin by noting that Bazley’s four-year sentence for his Level 5 felony is

within the statutory sentencing range and is not at the highest level of the range.

I.C. § 35-50-2-6(b) (providing the sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one

year to six years, with an advisory sentence of three years). [9] Moreover, our review of the record discloses nothing remarkable about the

nature of the offense that would warrant revising Bazley’s sentence. “The

nature of the offense is found in the details and circumstances of the

commission of the offense and the defendant’s participation.” Zavala v. State,

138 N.E.3d 291, 301 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quotation and citation omitted),

trans. denied. Here, Bazley grabbed S.B. by the throat, pulled out what appeared

to be a handgun, and threatened to kill S.B. These actions were not

accompanied by any restraint, as Bazley seems to contend in his brief when he

notes that the crime was “relatively short in duration and broke off quickly.”

Appellant Br. at 10. Rather, Bazley only released S.B. and ran away when her

roommate arrived on the scene. [10] Nor does the nature of Bazley’s character warrant a sentence revision. “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.” Denham v. State, 142 N.E.3d 514,

517 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (quotation and citation omitted), trans. denied; see also

Maffett v. State, 113 N.E.3d 278, 286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (“Continuing to

commit crimes after frequent contacts with the judicial system is a poor

reflection on one’s character.”) (citation omitted). Bazley has a delinquency

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1247 | December 30, 2020 Page 5 of 6

and criminal history that includes multiple convictions of armed robbery. He

also has a history of probation violation and was out of jail awaiting a bench

trial for a pending misdemeanor charge in Indiana at the time he committed the

crime. Moreover, at the time he committed the crime in the instant case,

Bazley was “listed as a Fugitive out of Jefferson County, Louisiana” and had a

“parole hold” in place related to criminal charges in Louisiana. App. at 48.

Bazley’s criminal history reflects poorly on his character. [11] We cannot say that Bazley’s sentence of four years imprisonment for his Level

5 felony conviction is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his

character. [12] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1247 | December 30, 2020 Page 6 of 6