Bryce Paxson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 08 2016, 9:43 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark Small Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Matthew B. Mackenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Bryce Paxson, December 8, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
38A02-1607-CR-1646
v. Appeal from the Jay Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Max C. Ludy,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
38D01-1511-F4-4
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 38A02-1607-CR-1646 | December 8, 2016 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Bryce Paxson (“Paxson”) pleaded guilty to Causing Death When Operating a
Motor Vehicle with an Alcohol Concentration Equivalent of .15 or More, as a
Level 4 felony.1 Paxson appeals his twelve-year sentence, raising the sole
restated issue of whether the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of
the offense and his character.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Following events on October 30, 2015, the State charged Paxson with Causing
Death When Operating a Motor Vehicle with an Alcohol Concentration
Equivalent of .08 or More, as a Level 5 felony. On November 18, 2015, the
State charged Paxson with a second count, Causing Death When Operating a
Motor Vehicle with an Alcohol Concentration Equivalent of .15 or More, as a
Level 4 felony. Paxson entered into a plea agreement whereby Paxson would
plead guilty to Count 2, the State would dismiss Count 1, and the State would
make no recommendation at sentencing. On July 13, 2016, the trial court
accepted Paxson’s guilty plea and proceeded directly to sentencing Paxson for
1
Ind. Code § 9-30-5-5(b)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 38A02-1607-CR-1646 | December 8, 2016 Page 2 of 4
the Level 4 felony conviction. Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced
Paxson to twelve years executed, the maximum sentence authorized by statute.
[4] Paxson now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Article 7, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution grants the authority for
appellate review and revision of criminal sentences, and is implemented
through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Under this rule, this “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 performing our review, we
assess “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). The principal role of such
review is to attempt to leaven the outliers. Id. at 1225.
[6] As to the nature of the offense, the evidence presented at sentencing indicated
that Paxson consumed approximately ten beers, then got behind the wheel of
his truck, leaving town at a high rate of speed. Paxson lost control of the truck,
hurtled through a driveway, and crashed into the front porch and wall of a
house. The truck came to rest in the living room, where sixteen-year-old S.C.
was on the couch. Paxson’s truck struck and killed S.C.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 38A02-1607-CR-1646 | December 8, 2016 Page 3 of 4
[7] Looking to the character of the offender, Paxson has two prior felony
convictions for dealing in methamphetamine in 2008. Paxson also has a prior
operating while intoxicated conviction in 1993. Paxson was on probation when
he committed the instant offense.
[8] Paxson has not persuaded us that his sentence was inappropriate.
Conclusion
[9] Paxson’s sentence does not warrant revision under Appellate Rule 7(B).
[10] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 38A02-1607-CR-1646 | December 8, 2016 Page 4 of 4