Darius Randle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED 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. Mar 25 2010, 9:11 am CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MONTY B. ARVIN Deputy Public Defender Kokomo, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA DARIUS RANDLE, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 34A04-1001-CR-3 APPEAL FROM THE HOWARD CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Lynn Murray, Judge Cause No. 34C01-0903-FB-50 March 25, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION MATHIAS, Judge Darius Randle ( Randle ) pleaded guilty in Howard Superior Court to Class C felony burglary. The trial court sentenced him to a term of six years with four years executed. Randle appeals and argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. We affirm. Facts and Procedural History On March 8, 2009, Christopher France ( France ) saw Randle inside of France s house with another man. During a struggle, France stabbed Randle, then pursued Randle as he fled. France followed as Randle fled into a nearby residence and observed some of his belongings in the residence and in a vehicle near that residence. Police officers apprehended an individual nearby who stated that he was at Gouchies[sic] house when Gouchie came in and said he had been stabbed. Appellant s App. p. 24. Randle is also known as Gouchie. Id. at 25 On March 10, 2009, the State charged Randle with Class B felony burglary. On October 14, 2009, Randle pleaded guilty to the lesser-included offense of Class C felony burglary. The plea agreement provided for a sentence with a cap of four years executed. Additionally, he was ordered to pay restitution and the State would dismiss the petition to revoke his suspended sentence in an unrelated case under Cause number 34D01-0711FB-873. The trial court sentenced Randle to four years executed. Randle now appeals. Discussion and Decision Randle argues that his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides: The Court may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after 2 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 Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), our supreme court explained: It is on this basis alone that a criminal defendant may now challenge his or her sentence where the trial court has entered a sentencing statement that includes a reasonably detailed recitation of its reasons for imposing a particular sentence that is supported by the record, and the reasons are not improper as a matter of law, but has imposed a sentence with which the defendant takes issue. [A] defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review. Id. The nature of the offense is not particularly unusual as Class C felonies go. However, Randle s character clearly supports the four-year sentence. Despite being only eighteen years old at sentencing and seventeen years old at the time the offense was committed, Randle has a prior Class B felony conviction for dealing cocaine. Randle believes that his guilty plea and show of remorse should be seen as evidence of his good character. The trial court properly gave the guilty plea little weight because of the reduction in class of offense and the dismissal of the petition to revoke his previously suspended sentence on the Class B felony. Additionally, Randle s version of events in the pre-sentence investigation report seeks to shift blame to the victim rather than showing remorse. Randle s character easily supports the trial court s imposition of the six-year sentence with four years executed. Randle s four-year sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. 3 Affirmed. BARNES, J., AND BROWN, J., concur. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
