Zack Hitchings v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 31 2014, 10:27 am ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: PATRICIA CARESS MCMATH Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana JAMES B. MARTIN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA ZACK HITCHINGS, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 49A02-1303-CR-207 APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Amy J. Barbar, Magistrate Cause No. 49G02-1208-PC-57778 March 31, 2014 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION KIRSCH, Judge Zach Hitchings appeals his eight-year sentence for robbery as a Class C felony1 contending that it was inappropriate. We affirm. Hitchings pleaded guilty to robbing the Teachers Credit Union in Indianapolis, the second time he has been convicted of robbing this institution. He has an extensive criminal history, including twenty-two prior arrests, five prior misdemeanor convictions, and ten prior felony convictions. This is the seventh time that Hitchens has been arrested for bank robbery, and the fourth time he has been convicted. In the remaining three bank robbery cases, the charges were dismissed due to his plea agreements in other cases. During his ten prior sentences in the Department of Correction, Hitchings received multiple official misconduct reports. We may exercise our authority under Appellate Rule 7(B) to revise a sentence that we conclude is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Hope v. State, 834 N.E.2d 713, 718 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (emphasis added). The defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met this inappropriateness standard of review. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Hitchings has failed to meet this standard. Assuming without deciding that the nature of his offense was not extraordinary, his character as revealed by his extensive criminal history is, and his eight-year sentence is not inappropriate. Affirmed. MAY, J., and BAILEY, J., concur. 1 See Ind. Code ยง 35-42-5-1. 2
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.
