Darius Altgilbers v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Aug 11 2015, 6:55 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before 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
Matthew D. Anglemeyer Gregory F. Zoeller
Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Jesse R. Drum
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Darius Altgilbers, August 11, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
49A05-1501-CR-14
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
Cause No. 49G05-1306-MR-41317
State of Indiana,
Appellee-Plaintiff. The Honorable Grant Hawkins,
Judge
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-14 | August 11, 2015 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] Darius Altgilbers appeals his sentence for murder. We affirm.
Issue
[2] Altgilbers raises one issue, which we restate as whether his sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender.
Facts
[3] On June 23, 2013, seventeen-year-old Altgilbers, Jamie Tooley, Crystal
Hampton, Daniel Tandy, Christopher Rogers, and Joshua Lewis were together
at Tooley and Hampton’s apartment in Indianapolis. The group needed money
and discussed robbing someone. Altgilbers had a silver revolver, and Rogers
had a black revolver. The group initially discussed robbing someone through
Craigslist but abandoned that idea. They then decided to rob Hampton’s
friend, David, and Hampton and Tooley went to David’s apartment. However,
they also abandoned that plan. Early the next morning, Hampton and Tooley
walked to a gas station where they met Bassirou Mahamadou, who agreed to
give them a ride back to their apartment.
[4] During the ride, Tooley texted Altgilbers and a phone shared by Rogers and
Lewis that they were getting a ride from someone they did not know and to “be
ready.” Tr. p. 89. When they arrived back at Tooley and Hampton’s
apartment, Hampton went inside. Only Tandy was in the apartment when
Hampton arrived. Tooley stayed in Mahamadou’s vehicle and talked to him
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-14 | August 11, 2015 Page 2 of 7
for a few minutes. When she got out of the vehicle, Mahamadou rolled down
his window, and Altgilbers grabbed Tooley from behind. Altgilbers moved
Tooley out of the way, and she ran into the apartment. When she got to the
apartment, she heard several gunshots.
[5] Altgilbers, Rogers, and Lewis then returned to the apartment. They were
“[p]anicking.” Id. at 96. Altgilbers said that Rogers “kept shooting and so he
said ‘f’ it and kept shooting too.” Id. at 197. Hampton asked them what they
did, and Altgilbers said, “You knew we was going to rob” him. Id. at 198.
Lewis told them, “why would you shoot him if you didn’t get anything and you
all are stupid if you all still have the guns.” Id. at 97. Altgilbers told Tooley
that he was sorry. They put the guns in a grocery bag and got rid of them.
Either Altgilbers or Rogers said that the guns were “in the woods.” Id. at 198.
[6] Mahamadou sustained several gunshot wounds, including one to his neck that
resulted in his death. When the police arrived, Altgilbers said that they should
“just lay down and wake up in the morning and it would be over.” Id. at 200.
However, Tooley, Hampton, Tandy, and Lewis went outside. Tooley allowed
the police to search her apartment, and they found a silver revolver cylinder in
the apartment on the kitchen floor. The police later recovered a grocery bag
containing two revolvers, one black and one silver, from woods behind the
apartment building. The silver revolver was missing its cylinder, and the
cylinder found in the apartment fit in the revolver. Altgilbers’s DNA was found
on the silver revolver, and Rogers’s fingerprint was found on Mahamadou’s
vehicle. An analysis of the bullets found in Mahamadou’s body showed that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-14 | August 11, 2015 Page 3 of 7
two of the bullets were fired by the black revolver. The silver revolver could not
be eliminated as having fired the bullet that entered Mahamadou’s neck.
[7] The State charged Altgilbers with murder, Class A felony attempted robbery,
and Class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery. A jury found Altgilbers
guilty as charged. Because of double jeopardy concerns, the trial court
sentenced Altgilbers only on the murder conviction. The trial court found that
Altgilbers’s criminal history, “though extensive, [was] insubstantial.” Id. at
658. The trial court acknowledged some rehabilitation efforts while Altgilbers
was incarcerated by attending classes or meetings. However, because the
certificates were all signed by the same person within a short number of
months, the trial court did not “know how much credit to give it.” Id. at 659.
The trial court also noted that Altgilbers had not responded to prior
rehabilitation attempts and opportunities, that he fled Lake County to avoid a
warrant for his arrest, and that there was a significant degree of planning in the
instant case. The trial court found that the aggravators outweighed the
mitigators and sentenced Altgilbers to sixty-three years in the Department of
Correction with four years suspended to probation. Altgilbers now appeals.
Analysis
[8] Altgilbers argues that his sixty-three-year sentence is inappropriate. Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B) permits us to revise a sentence authorized by statute if,
after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find that the sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender. Although Appellate Rule 7(B) does not require us to be “extremely”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-14 | August 11, 2015 Page 4 of 7
deferential to a trial court’s sentencing decision, we still must give due
consideration to that decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2007). We also understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial
court brings to its sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a defendant bears
the burden of persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is
inappropriate.” Id.
[9] The principal role of Appellate Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to
leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and
those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a
perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225
(Ind. 2008). We “should focus on the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather
than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the
sentence on any individual count.” Id. Whether a sentence is inappropriate
ultimately turns on 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.
[10] The nature of the offense is that Altgilbers and his friends decided to rob
someone because they did not have any money. Although they considered
other plans, ultimately, Tooley and Hampton obtained a ride from
Mahamadou, and Tooley sent a text to Altgilbers and the others to “be ready.”
Tr. p. 89. When they arrived, Altgilbers and Rogers shot Mahamadou.
Altgilbers’s silver revolver could not be eliminated as the weapon that fired the
bullet that killed Mahamadou.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-14 | August 11, 2015 Page 5 of 7
[11] Altgilbers argues that he was not the mastermind of the crime, that he “was
hardly, if at all, a part of planning the robbery,” and that he didn’t suggest any
potential victims. Appellant’s Br. p. 8. However, the record shows that
Altgilbers was present for the planning, he had multiple chances to cease
participation in the crime, and he discouraged the others from talking to the
police after the offense.
[12] As for the character of the offender, seventeen-year-old Altgilbers has an
extensive juvenile criminal history. In 2009, he was adjudicated delinquent for
acts that would have been Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily
injury and Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief. In 2010, he was
adjudicated delinquent for an act that would have been Class A misdemeanor
possession of marijuana. In 2012, he was adjudicated delinquent for an act that
would have been Class A misdemeanor false informing. He failed to complete
his community service and anger management counseling. He failed to comply
with probation and, ultimately, was made a ward of the Department of
Correction in 2012. In March 2013, a bench warrant was issued for Altgilbers
for a probation violation. However, he ran away from home that month, went
to Indianapolis, and committed the instant offense in June 2013.
[13] Altgilbers reported that his step-father was physically abusive to him. He was
expelled from high school in the tenth grade for fighting. A 2010 psychological
evaluation reported that he had a depressive disorder, disruptive behavior
disorder, a cannabis dependence, a reading disorder, and histrionic personality
traits with antisocial features. The report noted that he had experienced severe
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-14 | August 11, 2015 Page 6 of 7
physical and emotional trauma as a result of being beaten by his stepfather for a
three-year period. He began drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana at the age
of thirteen and had also abused Xanax.
[14] Altgilbers argues that he is “a traumatized young man who has . . . made poor
choices under the duress of crushing emotional impediments.” Appellant’s Br.
p. 11. He argues that he has tried to better himself by earning various
certificates while in jail during his instant incarceration. He points out that both
he and the State requested a sentence of fifty-five years, but the trial court
imposed a sentence of sixty-three years.
[15] We acknowledge Altgilbers’s difficult childhood and recent efforts to better
himself. However, given Altgilbers’s juvenile criminal history, failure to take
advantage of prior rehabilitative opportunities, and the senselessness of the
instant offense, we cannot say that the sentence imposed by the trial court is
inappropriate.
Conclusion
[16] The sixty-three-year sentence is not inappropriate. We affirm.
[17] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Bailey, concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1501-CR-14 | August 11, 2015 Page 7 of 7