Korey M. Sawicki v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                                     FILED
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                            Sep 29 2017, 10:28 am
    court except for the purpose of establishing
    CLERK
    the defense of res judicata, collateral                               Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    estoppel, or the law of the case.                                          and Tax Court
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                   ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Cara Schaefer Wieneke                                    Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    Wieneke Law Office, LLC                                  Attorney General of Indiana
    Brooklyn, Indiana
    Henry A. Flores, Jr.
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Korey M. Sawicki,                                        September 29, 2017
    Appellant-Defendant,                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
    70A01-1704-CR-757
    v.                                               Appeal from the Rush Circuit
    Court
    State of Indiana,                                        The Honorable David E. Northam,
    Appellee-Plaintiff                                       Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    70C01-1512-F4-772
    May, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A01-1704-CR-757 | September 29, 2017      Page 1 of 6
    [1]   Korey M. Sawicki appeals his four-year sentence for Level 4 felony burglary. 1
    As his sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm.
    Facts and Procedural History
    [2]   On October 8, 2015, in Rush County, Sawicki broke into the house of Sandra
    and Donald Rech. He stole “(2) MAC Laptops, (1) 43” Samsung Flat Screen
    TV, [and] (1) Computer Case.” (App. Vol. 2 at 8.) Blood found on a broken
    window in the house matched Sawicki’s blood. On December 23, 2015, the
    State charged Sawicki in Rush County with one count of Level 4 felony
    burglary and one count of Level 6 felony theft 2 for his actions at the Rech
    residence.
    [3]   One day before burglarizing the Rech house, Sawicki had committed two
    burglaries in Hancock County. Three weeks after the Rech burglary, he
    returned to Hancock County and committed two more burglaries. For those
    crimes in Hancock County, in June 2016, Sawicki pleaded guilty to two counts
    of Level 4 felony burglary and received consecutive sentences of five years for
    an aggregate ten-year sentence. 3
    1
    
    Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1
     (2014).
    2
    
    Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2
     (2014).
    3
    The State dismissed two burglary charges and two theft charges in return for his guilty plea.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A01-1704-CR-757 | September 29, 2017            Page 2 of 6
    [4]   Then, on January 23, 2017, back in Rush County, Sawicki pleaded guilty to the
    burglary charge, and the State dismissed the theft charge. Pursuant to the plea
    agreement, the State agreed to a four-year sentence; however, it was left to the
    discretion of the trial court whether this sentence would be consecutive to or
    concurrent with the sentences from Hancock County. After noting Sawicki’s
    “extensive criminal history,” (Tr. at 11), the trial court ordered Sawicki to serve
    the four-year sentence consecutive to the sentences from Hancock County.
    Discussion and Decision
    [5]   Sawicki asserts his sentence is inappropriate. Under Appellate Rule 7(B), we
    may revise a sentence if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we
    find the sentence inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the
    character of the offender. Anglemyer v. State, 
    868 N.E.2d 482
    , 491 (Ind. 2007),
    clarified on reh’g 
    875 N.E.2d 218
     (2007). We consider not only the aggravators
    and mitigators found by the trial court, but also any other factors appearing in
    the record. Johnson v. State, 
    986 N.E.2d 852
    , 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). We
    defer to the trial court’s decision, and our goal is to determine whether the
    defendant’s sentence is inappropriate, not whether some other sentence would
    be more appropriate. Conley v. State, 
    972 N.E.2d 864
    , 876 (Ind. 2012), reh’g
    denied. Sawicki, as the defendant, bears the burden of demonstrating his
    sentence is inappropriate. See Childress v. State, 
    848 N.E.2d 1073
    , 1080 (Ind.
    2006).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A01-1704-CR-757 | September 29, 2017   Page 3 of 6
    [6]   When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting
    point for determining the appropriateness of a sentence. Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d
    at 494. The sentencing range for a level 4 felony is “a fixed term of between
    two (2) and twelve (12) years, with the advisory sentence being six (6) years.”
    
    Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5
    .5 (2014). The trial court sentenced Sawicki to four years
    pursuant to the terms of his plea agreement, which is less than the advisory for
    a Level 4 felony.
    [7]   While committing this offense, Sawicki broke windows to enter the Rech house
    and stole more than $750 worth of items. During the pre-sentence
    investigation, Sawicki said he was “frustrated because he feels if his co-
    respondent had not talked the State could not have proven their cases.”
    (Confidential App. Vol. 2 at 68.) The officer taking the report noted “[Sawicki]
    believes his criminal actions were justified by the fact he was taking care of his
    girlfriend [and] he stole to make ends meet.” (Id.) The officer reported Sawicki
    “demonstrated no remorse for the victims; rather, he doesn’t want them to feel
    the offenses were personal as he chose houses at random.” (Id. at 69.) These
    statements reflect Sawicki has no respect for the law and will not discontinue
    his criminal activity.
    [8]   When considering the character of the offender, one relevant fact is the
    defendant’s criminal history. Johnson, 986 N.E.2d at 857. The significance of
    criminal history varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior
    offenses in relation to the offense. Id. The trial court specifically noted that
    “without referring even to a juvenile record[, Sawicki’s criminal record] appears
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A01-1704-CR-757 | September 29, 2017   Page 4 of 6
    to have . . . gone all the way back through most of his adult life, . . . so basically
    the Court believes that the, uh, extensive criminal history, . . . warrant[s] that . .
    . this sentence be imposed consecutively.” (Tr. at 11.) Sawicki’s criminal
    history, without including the current charge or the Hancock County charges,
    includes two felony theft charges and multiple misdemeanor drug possession
    charges, along with a felony drug possession charge. (See Confidential App.
    Vol. 2 at 62-64.)
    [9]   Taking into account the below-advisory sentence of four years, Sawicki’s
    criminal history, and his lack of remorse, we see nothing inappropriate about
    his four-year sentence. See, e.g., Johnson, 986 N.E.2d at 857 (affirming sentence
    as not inappropriate based on criminal history); see also Davis v. State, 
    892 N.E.2d 156
    , 165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (lack of remorse reflects poorly on the
    offender). 4
    Conclusion
    4
    Sawicki characterizes his sentence as inappropriate because the trial court ordered him to serve the four-
    year sentence consecutive to his sentences from Hancock County. Sawicki’s aggregate sentence for three
    counts of Level 4 felony burglary is fourteen years: five years each for two counts and four years for the third.
    As noted above, the advisory sentence for Level 4 felonies is six years, with a range of two to twelve years.
    
    Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5
    .5 (2014). Not only are all three individual sentences below the advisory sentence of six
    years, Sawicki has an extensive criminal history and has shown no respect for the law or an indication he will
    change his behavior. Thus, although the sentences from Hancock County are not at issue in this appeal, we
    hold consecutive sentencing with the Hancock County charges is not inappropriate. See Perry v. State, 
    921 N.E.2d 525
    , 528 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (sentence deemed not inappropriate when ordered served consecutive
    to sentence from Michigan when defendant’s character and the nature of the offense showed “complete
    disregard for the safety and property of others”).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A01-1704-CR-757 | September 29, 2017             Page 5 of 6
    [10]   Neither the four-year sentence nor the fact the trial court ordered Sawicki to
    serve it consecutive to the other sentences is inappropriate. Accordingly, we
    affirm.
    [11]   Affirmed.
    Barnes, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A01-1704-CR-757 | September 29, 2017   Page 6 of 6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 70A01-1704-CR-757

Filed Date: 9/29/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/29/2017