Braunel Mackey v. State of Indiana ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be
    regarded as precedent or cited before                                         Jun 25 2014, 10:00 am
    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:
    VALERIE K. BOOTS                                    GREGORY F. ZOELLER
    Marion County Public Defender Agency                Attorney General of Indiana
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    LARRY D. ALLEN
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    BRAUNEL MACKEY,                                     )
    )
    Appellant-Defendant,                         )
    )
    vs.                                  )      No. 49A02-1310-CR-873
    )
    STATE OF INDIANA,                                   )
    )
    Appellee-Plaintiff.                          )
    APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
    The Honorable Steven Eichholtz, Judge
    Cause No. 49G20-1303-FB-14423
    June 25, 2014
    MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    MAY, Judge
    Braunel Mackey appeals his fifteen-year sentence for class B felony unlawful
    possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (“SVF”).1 He asserts that sentence is
    inappropriate in light of his character and offense. We affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    On March 2, 2013, at 1:30 a.m., as Mackey entered Babe’s West, a strip club in
    Indianapolis, he attempted to bypass the security pat-down. Melvin Hall, one of the club’s
    security guards, stopped him. Hall conducted a routine pat-down on Mackey and felt the
    slide of a pistol in Mackey’s crotch area. Hall alerted other security guards while keeping his
    hand on the handgun in Mackey’s pants. Mackey struggled with Hall and continuously tried
    to reach the handgun. Brandon Levett, another security guard, and Tony Martin, the club
    manager, helped Hall handcuff Mackey. While Mackey was handcuffed, Martin retrieved
    the handgun from Mackey’s boxers, where Mackey had the grip wedged in between his
    buttocks with the barrel pointed toward his penis. Martin handed the handgun to Levett, who
    unloaded it and gave it to the police officer who arrived at the scene.
    A jury found Mackey guilty of Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by an
    SVF. The judge requested a presentence report (PSI). Following the sentencing hearing, the
    court found three aggravating factors: Mackey’s criminal and arrest history, Mackey’s failure
    to complete past Community Corrections placements, and his pending charges for acts
    committed while released on bond in this case. The court found no mitigating factors and
    ordered a fifteen-year sentence executed at the Department of Correction.
    1
    Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5.
    2
    DISCUSSION AND DECISION
    Mackey asserts his fifteen-year sentence, which is five years more than the advisory
    sentence for a Class B felony, see Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5 (stating advisory sentence for a
    Class B felony is ten years), is inappropriate in light of his character and the nature of his
    offense. We have the constitutional authority to revise a sentence if, after considering the
    trial court’s decision, we conclude the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
    offense and character of the offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). “We recognize, however,
    the special expertise of the trial courts in making sentencing decisions; thus, we exercise with
    great restraint our responsibility to review and revise sentences.” Scott v. State, 
    840 N.E.2d 376
    , 381 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. Mackey has the burden on appeal of persuading
    us his sentence is inappropriate. See Childress v. State, 
    848 N.E.2d 1073
    , 1080 (Ind. 2006).
    Regarding the nature of the offense, one factor we may consider in determining the
    appropriateness of the deviation from the advisory sentence is “whether there is anything
    more or less egregious about the offense committed by the defendant that makes it different
    from the typical offense.” Wells v. State, 
    2 N.E.3d 123
    , 131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans.
    denied. To commit unlawful possession of a firearm by an SVF, Mackey needed only to
    possess a firearm. See Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5 (defining the crime as an SVF who knowingly
    and intentionally possesses a firearm). The record reveals Mackey concealed a loaded
    handgun in his boxers and tried to enter the club without being searched. Once the security
    guard felt the handgun, Mackey struggled with the guards and continuously reached for the
    gun. The incident escalated to the point that the guards handcuffed Mackey and called the
    3
    police. Martin testified the club’s normal procedure when a gun is found involves asking the
    patron to return it to his or her car and then searching the patron again on reentry. Mackey’s
    offense is more egregious because he tried to avoid being searched and because he reached
    for the gun as he struggled with security guards. See Morgan v. State, 
    934 N.E.2d 1246
    ,
    1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (holding escalating danger to people in the area was an
    aggravator).
    As for Mackey’s character, the record reveals that, as a twenty-three-year old man, he
    has a history of both juvenile and adult arrests, convictions of misdemeanors and felonies,
    and misconduct reports while in the Department of Correction. Mackey completed one
    community corrections placement, but did not complete his most recent placement. While
    out on bond awaiting trial on this cause, Mackey engaged in acts for which the State charged
    him with unlawful possession of a firearm by an SVF, intimidation, residential entry,
    pointing a firearm, and unlawful use of body armor. In Mackey’s PSI, the investigator noted
    Mackey lied about his drug use and gambling habits. (PSI at 9-11.) At trial, Mackey claimed
    to be “one of the main providers” for his children, (Tr. at 142), but the PSI indicates their
    mother provides for them financially. (PSI at 9.) Mackey’s history reveals a disregard for
    the law and his character does not suggest this sentence is inappropriate. See 
    Morgan, 934 N.E.2d at 1252
    (finding an extensive criminal history and arrest record made a fifteen-year
    sentence appropriate for a Class B felony).
    4
    CONCLUSION
    In view of Mackey’s character and the nature of his offense, we cannot hold the
    sentence imposed by the trial court was inappropriate. Accordingly, we affirm.
    Affirmed.
    KIRSCH, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 49A02-1310-CR-873

Filed Date: 6/25/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021