Devan Lampe v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Sep 21 2017, 9:56 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
CLERK
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
regarded as precedent or cited before any and Tax Court
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
Donald E.C. Leicht Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Kokomo, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Jesse R. Drum
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Devan Lampe, September 21, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
34A02-1706-CR-1306
v. Appeal from the Howard Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Lynn Murray,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
34C01-1602-F2-34
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1706-CR-1306 | September 21, 2017 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Appellant-Defendant Devan Lampe was released from incarceration on
December 11, 2015. A few days later, during the early morning hours of
December 14, 2015, Lampe and his friend James Wimmer broke into a home
with the intent to steal from the home’s occupants. Once inside the home,
Wimmer forced the female occupant of the home into the bedroom closet and
forcibly raped her while Lampe confined the male occupant to the living room
by holding a gun to his head. Once the rape was complete, Lampe forced the
male occupant into the closet with the female occupant.
[2] On February 2, 2016, Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (“the State”)
charged Lampe with one count of Level 2 felony burglary and two courts of
Level 3 felony criminal confinement. Lampe subsequently pled guilty to one
count of Level 3 felony burglary. In exchange for Lampe’s guilty plea, the State
agreed to dismiss the remaining counts. Following a sentencing hearing, the
trial court sentenced Lampe to a sixteen-year term of incarceration. Lampe
appeals, arguing that his sentence is inappropriate. Because we conclude
otherwise, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Lampe began abusing alcohol and drugs when he was approximately eleven or
twelve years old. Since that time, Lampe has continued to abuse drugs and has
committed numerous criminal acts. Lampe was released from incarceration in
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1706-CR-1306 | September 21, 2017 Page 2 of 6
relation to one of these criminal acts on Friday, December 11, 2015. By the
following Sunday, Lampe had spent all of his money on drugs. In an attempt
to acquire additional money with which they could purchase drugs, Lampe and
Wimmer decided to rob the victims.
[4] During the early morning hours of December 14, 2015, Lampe and Wimmer
broke into the victims’ home. Upon entering the home, Wimmer forced the
female victim into a bedroom closet while Lampe confined her husband to the
living room by holding a gun to his head. Once in the closet, Wimmer forcibly
raped the female victim. After the rape was completed, Lampe forced the male
victim into the closet with his wife.
[5] On February 2, 2016, the State charged Lampe with one count of Level 2 felony
burglary and two courts of Level 3 felony criminal confinement. On April 26,
2017, Lampe pled guilty to one count of Level 3 felony burglary. In exchange
for Lampe’s guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining counts. In
connection to the plea, the Howard County Probation Department
recommended a sixteen-year sentence, with fourteen years of incarceration and
two years suspended to probation. On May 31, 2017, the trial court accepted
Lampe’s guilty plea and sentenced him to a sixteen-year term of incarceration.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Lampe contends that his sixteen-year sentence is inappropriate. In challenging
the appropriateness of his sentence, Lampe asserts that the trial court should
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1706-CR-1306 | September 21, 2017 Page 3 of 6
have ordered that a portion of his sixteen-year sentence been suspended to
probation, arguing “[w]ithout a period of Supervised Probation, society will not
have done all it could do for Lampe and for any future [victims].” Appellant’s
Br. p. 13. We disagree.
[7] 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).
[8] With respect to the nature of Lampe’s offense, Lampe acknowledges that his
criminal acts were serious but argues that the pain caused to his victim “was not
the most horrible ‘physical pain’ imaginable.” Appellant’s Br. p. 11. Lampe
supports this argument by asserting that “[t]here is no evidence that [the victim]
was murdered, tortured, burned alive, doused with acid, [or] brutalized multiple
times over many hours or days.” Appellant’s App. p. 11. Upon breaking into
the victims’ home during the early morning hours, Wimmer forcibly raped the
female victim in her bedroom closet while Lampe confined her husband by
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1706-CR-1306 | September 21, 2017 Page 4 of 6
holding a gun to his head. After the rape was completed, Lampe forced the
male victim into the closet with his wife. We find these actions to be atrocious
and reject Lampe’s attempt to minimize the serious nature of these actions by
pointing out that the pain suffered by the victims could have, theoretically, been
worse.
[9] As for Lampe’s character, the record reveals that Lampe has an extensive
criminal history which includes several juvenile adjudications, prior
misdemeanor and felony convictions, and prior probation violations. Lampe’s
juvenile adjudications include adjudications for actions which would have
constituted the following criminal offenses if committed by an adult: multiple
adjudications for battery resulting in bodily injury, criminal mischief with
damage, theft, and pointing a firearm. Another juvenile adjudication for
receiving stolen property was dismissed after Lampe successfully completed
court-ordered programing and paid restitution. As an adult, Lampe has
amassed a criminal history which includes the following misdemeanor
convictions: conversion, public intoxication, disorderly conduct, resisting law
enforcement. In addition, his criminal history includes a conviction for Level 6
felony possession of precursors with the intent to manufacture
methamphetamine. Lampe’s criminal history also includes prior probation
violations.
[10] While incarcerated in the instant matter awaiting sentencing, Lampe received
approximately fourteen disciplinary “write-ups” and has been found guilty of at
least twelve of these disciplinary violations. Appellant’s App. Vol. IV –
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1706-CR-1306 | September 21, 2017 Page 5 of 6
Confidential, p. 12. Further, the pre-sentence investigation completed prior to
sentencing found that Lampe is a “VERY HIGH” risk to reoffend. Appellant’s
App. Vol. IV – Confidential, p. 15. This finding is especially troubling
considering that Lampe committed the criminal acts at issue in this case fewer
than five days after being released from incarceration. Lampe’s actions,
considered with his criminal history, demonstrate that Lampe has not only a
disdain for the criminal justice system, but also a disdain for the rights and
safety of others. As such, we conclude that Lampe has failed to prove that his
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character.
[11] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1706-CR-1306 | September 21, 2017 Page 6 of 6