William Alan Seydel v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), May 25 2016, 7:07 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
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
Kristin A. Mulholland Gregory F. Zoeller
Appellate Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Crown Point, Indiana
Paula J. Beller
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
William Alan Seydel, May 25, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
45A03-1512-CR-2129
v. Appeal from the Lake Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Salvador Vasquez,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
45G01-1405-FA-14
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1512-CR-2129 | May 25, 2016 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] William Alan Seydel appeals the twenty-nine-year sentence imposed by the trial
court following his guilty plea to one count of class B felony aggravated battery
and two counts of class C felony attempted battery by means of a deadly
weapon. He argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of
his offenses and his character. Concluding that he has not met his burden to
show that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On May 1, 2014, Dquan Robinson was driving in the area of Mississippi Street
and the Comfort Inn in Hobart. He felt as if the vehicle behind him was
traveling too closely, so he pulled his vehicle over to allow that vehicle, which
was being driven by Seydel, to pass him. Seydel pulled his vehicle alongside
Robinson’s and pointed a .40 caliber semi-automatic handgun at him and shot
him in the head. The record indicates that Robinson and Seydel had never met
and did not know each other.
[3] When law enforcement officers, in marked police vehicles and uniforms,
responded to the shooting and encountered Seydel, Seydel fired his handgun at
Hobart Police Department Officers Timothy Pochron, Ryan Walsh, and Kevin
Garber, Jr. The officers repeatedly commanded Seydel to drop his weapon but
Seydel refused to comply. Instead, Seydel replied, “I’m going to defend
myself” and “F**k off.” Appellant’s App. at 46. Seydel threatened that if
police “sent the K-9, the dog would be killed.” Id. Officer Pochron observed
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1512-CR-2129 | May 25, 2016 Page 2 of 7
“muzzle flash after muzzle flash after muzzle flash” as Seydel continually fired
at him. Tr. at 32. Seydel was eventually taken into custody and a subsequent
blood draw revealed that his blood alcohol content was 210 mg/dl (0.21 %).
Seydel admits that he is an alcoholic and a drug abuser.
[4] The State charged Seydel with class A felony attempted murder, class B felony
aggravated battery, two counts of class C felony battery (one count of battery by
means of a deadly weapon and one count of battery resulting in serious bodily
injury), three counts of class C felony attempted battery by means of a deadly
weapon, and two counts of class D felony resisting law enforcement. Seydel
and the State subsequently entered into a plea agreement in which Seydel
agreed to plead guilty to class B felony aggravated battery and two counts of
class C felony attempted battery, in exchange for dismissal of the remaining
charges. A sentencing hearing was held on October 2, 1015. The trial court
sentenced Seydel to consecutive terms of sixteen years for class B felony
aggravated battery, six years for one count of class C felony attempted battery,
and seven years for the other count of class C felony attempted battery, for a
total executed sentence of twenty-nine years. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Seydel invites this Court to reduce his twenty-nine-year sentence pursuant to
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
find that the sentence “is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and
the character of the offender.” The defendant bears the burden to persuade this
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1512-CR-2129 | May 25, 2016 Page 3 of 7
Court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d
1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). “[W]hether we regard a sentence as appropriate 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.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind.
2008). We recognize that the “principal role of appellate review should be to
attempt to leaven the outliers and to 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.” Id. at 1225. Indeed, “[t]he
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 v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
[6] Regarding the nature of the offenses, the advisory sentence is the starting point
the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.
Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014). Seydel pled guilty to one class B
felony and two class C felonies. The sentencing range for a class B felony is
between six and twenty years, with an advisory sentence of ten years. Ind.
Code § 35-50-2-5. The sentencing range for a class C felony is between two and
eight years, with an advisory sentence of four years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6.
Seydel received a sixteen-year sentence for his class B felony and six and seven
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1512-CR-2129 | May 25, 2016 Page 4 of 7
years respectively for his class C felonies. The trial court enhanced each of
Seydel’s sentences above the advisory, and we think justifiably so. 1
[7] As for his class B felony offense, we must acknowledge, as did the trial court,
that Seydel received a great benefit from being permitted to plead guilty to the
aggravated battery of Robinson and have the attempted murder charge
dismissed when the facts clearly would have supported the greater offense.
Additionally, the facts here are distinctly more heinous than a typical
aggravated battery offense. The trial court emphasized that Robinson was
simply “minding his own business” when Seydel pursued him in his vehicle and
then shot him in the head “for no reason whatsoever.” Tr. at 64. A bullet
fragment remains lodged in Robinson’s brain. Robinson described the chronic
pain and anxiety he suffers as a result of Seydel’s crime, as well as the
destructive effect the whole experience has had on his personal life. Id, at 22.
Seydel’s unprovoked crime did not simply inflict serious injuries upon
Robinson, it inflicted life-altering injuries. The advisory sentence would have
been too lenient in light of these circumstances.
[8] As for his two convictions for class C felony attempted battery by means of a
deadly weapon, the trial court specifically noted that enhancement of those
sentences beyond the advisory was appropriate because Seydel’s victims were
1
Seydel does not specifically challenge the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. Moreover,
“appellate review should focus on the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or
concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at
1225.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1512-CR-2129 | May 25, 2016 Page 5 of 7
law enforcement officers. Officer Pochron testified at length during the
sentencing hearing about the lasting negative impact Seydel’s frightening
behavior has had on him and his family. Seydel was sentenced to six years for
firing his weapon at Officer Pochron and seven years for firing his weapon at
Officers Garber and Walsh. We defer to the trial court’s judgment that
enhanced sentences on each of these counts, especially when three separate
victims were involved, was warranted. 2 See Sanchez v. State, 938 N.E.2d 720, 723
(Ind. 2010) (acknowledging generally that multiple victims justify the
imposition of enhanced and consecutive sentences). Seydel has not
demonstrated that the trial court imposed an inappropriate sentence based upon
the nature of his offenses.
[9] When Seydel’s character is considered, he does not fare much better. Although
remote and insubstantial, Seydel does have a criminal history which involved a
prior conviction for misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The
current crimes also involved Seydel’s intoxication, however the results were
much more horrific as he shot a stranger in the head and fired upon others
without regard to the dangerousness of this behavior. The record indicates that
fifty-four-year-old Seydel has been an alcoholic since the age of twelve and
consistently abused marijuana and cocaine. He has also abused Vicodin and
2
The trial court expressed “dissatisfaction” with the fact that the offenses against Officers Garber and Walsh
“are both combined in one count because I truly believe that these counts ought to be separated.” Tr. at 67.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1512-CR-2129 | May 25, 2016 Page 6 of 7
Percocet for the last seventeen years. This long and consistent history of drug
and alcohol abuse does not reflect favorably upon Seydel’s character.
[10] Moreover, although Seydel did plead guilty to his offenses, which generally
reflects positively on a defendant’s character, the record reflects that his
decision was likely a pragmatic one and not a true expression of remorse.
Indeed, the trial court specifically found Seydel’s claims of remorse to be
manipulative and dishonest. A trial court is in the best position to gauge the
sincerity of a defendant’s remorse, similar to other determinations of credibility.
Pickens v. State, 767 N.E.2d 530, 535 (Ind. 2002). We perceive no basis for
sentence revision based upon Seydel’s character.
[11] In sum, Seydel has not shown that his twenty-nine-year sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses or his character. The
sentence imposed by the trial court is affirmed.
[12] Affirmed.
Najam, J. and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1512-CR-2129 | May 25, 2016 Page 7 of 7