Ddrea Wayne Bostic v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

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