Robert Campbell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 22 2015, 9:11 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
Adam G. Forrest Gregory F. Zoeller
Boston Bever Klinge Cross & Chidester Attorney General of Indiana
Richmond, Indiana
Karl M. Scharnberg
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Robert Campbell, December 22, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
89A04-1503-CR-98
v. Appeal from the Wayne Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Charles K. Todd,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Jr., Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
89D01-1203-MR-5
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 89A04-1503-CR-98 | December 22, 2015 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary
[1] Robert Campbell appeals his ninety-eight-year sentence for murder, Class A
felony conspiracy to commit robbery, and Class B felony conspiracy to commit
robbery. We affirm.
Issue
[2] The issue before us is whether Campbell’s aggregate sentence of ninety-eight
years is inappropriate in light of his character and the nature of the offenses.
Facts
[3] Campbell was friends with the victim Mike Sekse. They had known each other
for three to four months prior to Seske’s murder. Campbell supplied Sekse with
large quantities of marijuana, and Sekse was a dealer. The two conducted
transactions at least three times prior to the day of the incident. On March 20,
2012, Campbell, along with John Gray, Montell Westfall, David Lady, Jr., and
Matt Allen, concocted a plan to inform Sekse that Campbell had fifteen pounds
of marijuana worth approximately $11,250 to sell. Campbell, who was
eighteen years old, did not in fact have any marijuana to sell, but he wanted
Sekse to come to Gray’s residence with the money to make the purchase.
[4] Campbell spearheaded the plan to surprise Sekse and take the money Seske
brought. After Sekse’s arrival, Westfall and Allen were to go to the shed in the
backyard to pretend to remove a piece of plywood off the wall where the
marijuana was supposedly hidden. The group took this step to ensure Sekse did
not get suspicious. Meanwhile, Sekse and Campbell were to go back to Sekse’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 89A04-1503-CR-98 | December 22, 2015 Page 2 of 8
truck and count the money. When Sekse and Campbell came back to get the
marijuana from the shed, Gray and Lady intended to “jump” Sekse. Tr. p. 266.
Campbell placed his gun in the shed on Gray’s property.
[5] Upon Sekse’s arrival to Gray’s home, Sekse and Campbell met in Sekse’s truck
to count the money. Campbell told Westfall and Allen to go into the shed and
get the marijuana. After the money was counted, Campbell and Sekse walked
out to the shed. Lady and Gray followed Campbell and Sekse into the shed.
Lady immediately began stabbing Sekse in the neck. Sekse turned around, and
Gray stabbed him in the back. He was stabbed a total of fourteen times. Sekse
tried to defend himself, but at that point Campbell shot him in the head. Sekse
was still breathing after being shot. Gray then grabbed Sekse by the hair and
stabbed him in the neck a few more times because he was still breathing. Sekse
then died.
[6] After the incident, Campbell distributed $1,000 to each of his four co-
conspirators kept the rest for himself. Campbell gave his gun to Allen and
requested that Allen get rid of it. Campbell stated, “I don’t want to spend the
rest of my life in prison.” Id. at 237. Gray stated that he would move the body
and also promised to move Sekse’s truck. The day after the murder, Sekse’s
brother, Mark, questioned Campbell about where his brother was.
[7] Campbell fled to Toledo, Ohio, and later Richmond, Kentucky. He spent his
money on a gun, food, drugs, and accommodations. On April 17, 2012,
Campbell was arrested. On January 30, 2015, Campbell pled guilty to murder,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 89A04-1503-CR-98 | December 22, 2015 Page 3 of 8
Class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery, and Class B felony conspiracy to
commit robbery. The trial court imposed a sentence of sixty years for murder,
thirty-eight years for Class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery, and
fourteen years for Class B felony conspiracy to commit robbery. The sentences
for murder and Class A felony conspiracy are to be served consecutively while
the sentence for Class B felony conspiracy is to be served concurrent with the
other two sentences, resulting in an aggregate term of ninety-eight years.
Campbell now appeals.
Analysis
[8] Campbell asserts that his ninety-eight-year sentence is inappropriate under
Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) in light of his character and the nature of the
offenses. Although Rule 7(B) does not require us to be “extremely” deferential
to a trial court’s sentencing decision, we still must give due consideration to that
decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We
also understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its
sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a defendant bears the burden of
persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate.” Id.[9] The principal role of Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the
outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged
with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived
‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind.
2008). We “should focus on the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 89A04-1503-CR-98 | December 22, 2015 Page 4 of 8
the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the
sentence on any individual count.” Id. Whether a sentence is inappropriate
ultimately turns on 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. When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence
under Rule 7(B), we may consider all aspects of the penal consequences
imposed by the trial court in sentencing the defendant, including whether a
portion of the sentence was suspended. Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023,
1025 (Ind. 2010).
[10] Regarding Campbell’s character, we do acknowledge that he pled guilty, which
generally is a positive reflection upon character. See Cotto v. State, 829 N.E.2d
520, 525-26 (Ind. 2005). Campbell also expressed remorse at the sentencing
hearing, which he contends warrants a reduced sentence. However, the trial
court specifically stated on the record that after observing Campbell and
considering all the other evidence, it was “convinced the Defendant has
considerable remorse regarding the position he finds himself in and being
locked up, [but] the Court is less convinced . . . the Defendant has any
significant remorse for his actions and the impact on the victim’s family.” Tr.
p. 149. A trial court is in the best position to gauge the sincerity of a
defendant’s remorse, similar to other determinations of credibility. See Pickens
v. State, 767 N.E.2d 530, 535 (Ind. 2002).
[11] Campbell further asserts that his relatively young age at the time of the
offenses—eighteen—should factor into a reduction of his sentence. We
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 89A04-1503-CR-98 | December 22, 2015 Page 5 of 8
disagree. “Focusing on chronological age is a common shorthand for
measuring culpability, but for people in their teens and early twenties it is
frequently not the end of the inquiry. There are both relatively old offenders
who seem clueless and relatively young ones who appear hardened and
purposeful.” Ellis v. State, 736 N.E.2d 731, 736 (Ind. 2000). Campbell falls into
the “hardened and purposeful” category. He was the ringleader of the
conspiracy to rob and kill Sekse and painstakingly cover up the crime.
Moreover, as noted by the trial court at the sentencing hearing, Campbell had
been dealing marijuana for three years before Sekse’s murder and robbery, often
in large quantities. This was not a situation in which a youthful, naïve
defendant was led into criminal behavior by an older individual. We give no
special consideration to Campbell’s age at the time of the offenses.
[12] Counterbalancing any positive evidence of Campbell’s character as revealed by
his guilty plea is his history of criminal activity, as shown by prior juvenile
adjudications and uncharged conduct. Campbell attempts to minimize his
juvenile record, noting that his first contact with the juvenile justice system at
age nine was for battering a fellow student by pinching and that one of his true
findings was for criminal mischief. In addition to those two incidents, however,
Campbell also was found delinquent on separate occasions for battery and
possession of marijuana. Campbell also was arrested on multiple occasions for
various other offenses as a juvenile. Campbell was engaged in a substantial
marijuana-dealing operation for approximately three years before these
offenses. Even if Campbell’s prior criminal history was relatively minor, he was
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 89A04-1503-CR-98 | December 22, 2015 Page 6 of 8
hardly living a law-abiding life for several years before he orchestrated Sekse’s
robbery and murder—quite the opposite. See Edrington v. State, 909 N.E.2d
1093, 1100 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (noting that lack of prior convictions does not
necessarily indicate defendant had led a law-abiding life where evidence
indicates he or she regularly engaged in uncharged criminal conduct), trans.
denied. Finally, we note that Campbell accumulated approximately seventy
conduct violations while in jail awaiting the outcome of his case. This also
reflects poorly upon his character and ability to conform his behavior to legal
requirements. See Field v. State, 843 N.E.2d 1008, 1012 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006),
trans. denied. In sum, there is considerable evidence of Campbell’s negative
character, significantly outweighing the positive effect of his guilty plea. 1
[13] As for the nature of the offenses, Campbell devised the plan to rob and murder
Sekse, using the cover of his substantial long-term marijuana dealing operation
to lure Sekse into a trap. Campbell then took steps to cover up the crime and
fled the state, using the money he had stolen from Sekse to support himself and
to buy more drugs. As found by the trial court, it is clear from the record that
Campbell was the most culpable of all the perpetrators of the robbery and
murder. That level of culpability is reflected in the sentence Campbell received
as compared to his cohorts: Gray received a sentence of ninety years, while the
others received sentences of forty to fifty years. The only apparent motive for
1
On appeal, Campbell does not refer to certain factors related to his character that he raised before the trial
court, such as alleged mental health issues and a difficult childhood.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 89A04-1503-CR-98 | December 22, 2015 Page 7 of 8
the murder was pure greed. Nothing about the nature of the offenses warrants a
reduction of Campbell’s sentence.
Conclusion
[14] Campbell’s ninety-eight-year sentence is not inappropriate. We affirm.
[15] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Najam, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 89A04-1503-CR-98 | December 22, 2015 Page 8 of 8