Akeem J. Bazley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 30 2020, 8:45 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Laura A. Raiman Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
R. Patrick Magrath Attorney General of Indiana
Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP
Tina L. Mann
Madison, Indiana Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Akeem J. Bazley, December 30, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-1247
v. Appeal from the Bartholomew
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable James D. Worton,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
03D01-1912-F5-7260
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1247 | December 30, 2020 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Akeem Bazley (“Bazley”) challenges his sentence, following a plea agreement,
for intimidation, as a Level 5 felony.1 The only issue he raises on appeal is
whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his
character.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Bazley and S.B. were in a romantic relationship. On December 26, 2019,
Bazley drove to S.B.’s apartment and threatened that he would bang on S.B.’s
door if she did not come outside to see him. S.B.’s friend Donald Dyer
(“Dyer”) arrived and tried to convince Bazley to leave. Bazley bragged to Dyer
about having a .45 caliber handgun on his person and having outstanding
warrants. S.B. then decided to go out and talk to Bazley. When S.B. went
outside, Bazley charged at her, put his hands around her throat, pinned her
against the wall, and started choking her. Bazley then pulled out what
appeared to be a handgun but later was determined to be a BB gun. Bazley
placed the gun under S.B.’s chin and told her that he would kill her if necessary.
1
Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(a), (b)(2)(A).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1247 | December 30, 2020 Page 2 of 6
S.B. started screaming. S.B.’s roommate then came outside, and Bazley ran
away.
[4] Dyer called the police who subsequently located Bazley at a residence where he
said he had been visiting family. Bazley also stated that he had not threatened
anyone with a firearm and did not possess a firearm. Police officers confirmed
that Bazley had outstanding warrants and then transported him to jail. The
officers subsequently located the BB gun in the yard where Bazley was arrested.
[5] On December 27, 2019, the State charged Bazley with intimidation, as a Level
5 felony; strangulation, as a Level 6 felony;2 and domestic battery, as a Class A
misdemeanor.3 On May 4, 2020, Bazley pled guilty to the charge of Level 5
felony intimidation, and the State agreed to the dismissal of the other charges.
Sentencing was left to the trial court’s discretion. On June 3, the trial court
sentenced Bazley to four years in the Indiana Department of Correction. This
appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Bazley contends that the sentence for his Level 5 felony intimidation conviction
is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Article 7,
Sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution “authorize[] independent appellate
2
I.C. § 35-42-2-9(c).
3
I.C. § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1247 | December 30, 2020 Page 3 of 6
review and revision of a sentence imposed by the trial court.” Roush v. State,
875 N.E.2d 801, 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (alteration in original). This
appellate authority is implemented through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Id.Revision of a sentence under Rule 7(B) requires the appellant to demonstrate
that his sentence is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B); see also Rutherford v. State,
866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
[7] Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate
sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court’s judgment “should
receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind.
2008). The principal role of appellate review is to attempt to “leaven the
outliers.” Id. at 1225. Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate 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.” Id. at 1224. The question is not whether another
sentence is more appropriate, but rather whether the sentence imposed is
inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] unless overcome by compelling evidence
portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by
restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant’s character (such as
substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson
v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1247 | December 30, 2020 Page 4 of 6
[8] We begin by noting that Bazley’s four-year sentence for his Level 5 felony is
within the statutory sentencing range and is not at the highest level of the range.
I.C. § 35-50-2-6(b) (providing the sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one
year to six years, with an advisory sentence of three years).
[9] Moreover, our review of the record discloses nothing remarkable about the
nature of the offense that would warrant revising Bazley’s sentence. “The
nature of the offense is found in the details and circumstances of the
commission of the offense and the defendant’s participation.” Zavala v. State,
138 N.E.3d 291, 301 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quotation and citation omitted),
trans. denied. Here, Bazley grabbed S.B. by the throat, pulled out what appeared
to be a handgun, and threatened to kill S.B. These actions were not
accompanied by any restraint, as Bazley seems to contend in his brief when he
notes that the crime was “relatively short in duration and broke off quickly.”
Appellant Br. at 10. Rather, Bazley only released S.B. and ran away when her
roommate arrived on the scene.
[10] Nor does the nature of Bazley’s character warrant a sentence revision. “The
significance of a criminal history in assessing a defendant’s character and an
appropriate sentence varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior
offenses in relation to the current offense.” Denham v. State, 142 N.E.3d 514,
517 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (quotation and citation omitted), trans. denied; see also
Maffett v. State, 113 N.E.3d 278, 286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (“Continuing to
commit crimes after frequent contacts with the judicial system is a poor
reflection on one’s character.”) (citation omitted). Bazley has a delinquency
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1247 | December 30, 2020 Page 5 of 6
and criminal history that includes multiple convictions of armed robbery. He
also has a history of probation violation and was out of jail awaiting a bench
trial for a pending misdemeanor charge in Indiana at the time he committed the
crime. Moreover, at the time he committed the crime in the instant case,
Bazley was “listed as a Fugitive out of Jefferson County, Louisiana” and had a
“parole hold” in place related to criminal charges in Louisiana. App. at 48.
Bazley’s criminal history reflects poorly on his character.
[11] We cannot say that Bazley’s sentence of four years imprisonment for his Level
5 felony conviction is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his
character.
[12] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1247 | December 30, 2020 Page 6 of 6