Wilfredo Padilla-Castellanos, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Wilfredo Padilla-Castellanos attempted to rob four people at gunpoint, but his victims managed to take control of his weapon and subdue him. The State charged Padilla-Castellanos with 15 offenses, and he pled guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement to 14 of them. The trial court sentenced Padilla-Castellanos to a total of 18 years of incarceration. Padilla-Castellanos now appeals, raising one issue for our review: Whether his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In the afternoon of December 1, 2022, Padilla-Castellanos, armed with a shotgun, went to Jose Hernan's Indianapolis residence to confront him about allegedly sleeping with Padilla-Castellanos's romantic partner. Padilla-Castellanos attempted to enter Hernan's residence through the front and back doors, but he was unsuccessful. Before leaving, Padilla-Castellanos fired his shotgun into the air.

[4] When Padilla-Castellanos left Hernan's residence, he headed toward Bertrand Road, where Cristian Ricardo Noriega (“C.R. Noriega”) and Karina Jackie-Hernandez were sitting inside a blue Honda vehicle that was parked near a red Honda occupied by C.R. Noriega's father Cristian Joel Noriega (“C.J. Noriega”) and Mario Caballero. Padilla-Castellanos first approached C.R. Noriega and Jackie-Hernandez, placing his shotgun against C.R. Noriega's head and demanding he and Jackie-Hernandez exit the vehicle and give Padilla-Castellanos their identification. Padilla-Castellanos fired two rounds, threatening to shoot C.R. Noriega and Jackie-Hernandez if they did not exit the vehicle; they both complied with Padilla-Castellanos's demands.

[5] Padilla-Castellanos then approached C.J. Noriega and Caballero, and he ordered them out of their vehicle at gunpoint. Once C.J. Noriega and Caballero had exited their vehicle, Padilla-Castellanos demanded they empty their pockets and give him their money and identification. Padilla-Castellanos then struck Caballero in the face and chest with the shotgun. Soon thereafter, while Padilla-Castellanos was distracted, Caballero grabbed the shotgun, and he and the Noriegas fought with Padilla-Castellanos for control of the shotgun. During the struggle, Padilla-Castellanos bit C.R. Noriega's finger. Caballero and the Noriegas successfully removed the shotgun from Padilla-Castellanos's control and held him down until law enforcement officers arrived. Padilla-Castellanos was unconscious when the officers arrived, and they determined he was likely intoxicated; before he was transported to the hospital, officers searched Padilla-Castellanos's person and discovered two 12-gauge shotgun shells, a knife, and a white powdery substance. Officers also confiscated Padilla-Castellanos's shotgun, which had one shotgun shell in the chamber.

[6] Padilla-Castellanos was arrested, and the State charged him with 15 offenses: four counts of attempted armed robbery as Level 3 felonies,¹ four counts of intimidation as Level 5 felonies,² one count of battery by means of a deadly weapon as a Level 5 felony,³ four counts of pointing a firearm as Level 6 felonies,⁴ one count of battery resulting in moderate bodily injury as a Level 6 felony,⁵ and one count of criminal recklessness as a Level 6 felony ⁶ . The State later dismissed the criminal recklessness charge, and Padilla-Castellanos pled guilty to the remaining 14 charges without the benefit of a plea agreement.

[7] The trial court accepted Paddilla-Castellanos's plea and vacated all but the attempted armed robbery convictions due to double jeopardy concerns.⁷ On each attempted armed robbery conviction, the trial court sentenced Padilla-Castellanos to nine years executed at the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). The trial court ordered Padilla-Castellanos to serve two of the four sentences consecutively and the other two sentences concurrently to one another and to the two consecutive sentences, resulting in a total aggregate sentence of 18 years of incarceration. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Padilla-Castellanos's Sentence Is Not Inappropriate Under Appellate Rule 7(B)

[8] Padilla-Castellanos argues his sentence is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B) and should be revised. The Indiana Constitution authorizes us to independently review and revise a trial court's sentencing decision. Russell v. State, 234 N.E.3d 829, 855–56 (Ind. 2024) (citing Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6; Jackson v. State, 145 N.E.3d 783, 784 (Ind. 2020)). That authority is implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), which permits us to revise a sentence 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.” Id. (quoting Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 159 (Ind. 2019)). Our role under this rule “is primarily to ‘leaven the outliers’ and identify ‘guiding principles’ for sentencers, rather than to achieve the ‘perceived “correct” result’ in each case.” Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 122 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008)). As such, “we rely on our ‘collective judgment as to the balance’ of all the relevant considerations involved, which include ‘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 122 (quoting Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224, 1226).

[9] Because we give “considerable deference” to a trial court's sentencing decision, Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 122 (quoting Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222), a defendant requesting revision under Appellate Rule 7(B) must present “compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense and the defendant's character,” id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Oberhansley v. State, 208 N.E.3d 1261, 1267 (Ind. 2023)). In reviewing the defendant's sentence, “we are not limited to the mitigators and aggravators found by the trial court,” Brown v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1, 4 (Ind. 2014), and we “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,” Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 122 (quoting Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225). Similarly, a defendant “need not ‘necessarily prove’ that the sentence is inappropriate on both counts” so long as “one of the prongs weighs heavily in favor” of revising the defendant's sentence. Id. at 126–27 (quoting Connor v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)) (emphasis in original). Nonetheless, “to the extent the evidence on one prong militates against relief, a claim based on the other prong must be all the stronger to justify relief.” Id. at 127 (citing Connor, 58 N.E.3d at 220).

[10] When considering the nature of the offense, we start with the advisory sentence. Brown, 10 N.E.3d at 4 (citing Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), as amended (July 10, 2007), decision clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007)). Here, Padilla-Castellanos was sentenced on four Level 3 felonies. “A person who commits a Level 3 felony ․ shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between three (3) and sixteen (16) years, with the advisory sentence being nine (9) years.” I.C. § 35-50-2-5(b) (emphasis added). On each of his four Level 3 felony convictions, the trial court sentenced Padilla-Castellanos to nine years executed at the DOC. The trial court ordered Padilla-Castellanos to serve two of those sentences consecutively to one another and the remaining two sentences concurrent to all the other sentences; in total, the trial court sentenced Padilla-Castellanos to 18 years of incarceration.

[11] Because the trial court imposed the advisory sentence on all four convictions, Padilla-Castellanos bears “a particularly heavy burden to prove it inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B).” Kincaid v. State, 171 N.E.3d 1036, 1042 (Ind. Ct. App.) (citing Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied), trans. denied, 173 N.E.3d 1028 (Ind. 2021). We first look to the nature of Padilla-Castellanos's offenses and consider, among other things, “whether there is anything more or less egregious about the offense committed by the defendant that makes it different from the ‘typical’ offense accounted for by the legislature when it set the advisory sentence,” T.A.D.W. v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1205, 1211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Holloway v. State, 950 N.E.2d 803, 806–07 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011)), as amended (May 26, 2023). We also consider whether the offense was “accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality.” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[12] Here, Padilla-Castellanos went to Hernan's residence armed with a shotgun and looking for a fight. After he failed to break into Hernan's residence, Padilla-Castellanos fired his shotgun into the air and went looking for a fight elsewhere, finding Jackie-Hernandez, Caballero, and the Noriegas. Padilla-Castellanos threatened to shoot C.R. Noriega and Jackie-Hernandez if they did not exit their vehicle and turn over their identification, placed his shotgun to C.R. Noriega's head, and fired his shotgun twice after ordering them out of their vehicle. Padilla-Castellanos then threatened C.J. Noriega and Caballero in much the same manner, demanded they turn over their identification and money, and struck Caballero in the face and chest with his shotgun. When Caballero and the Noriegas attempted to take away Padilla-Castellanos's shotgun, Padilla-Castellanos bit C.R. Noriega's finger in the ensuing struggle. In total, there were four victims. Padilla-Castellanos's offenses were clearly not accompanied by any restraint, regard, or lack of brutality that would warrant a mitigated sentence.

[13] In considering the character of the offender, “we engage in a broad consideration of a defendant's qualities,” T.A.D.W., 51 N.E.3d at 1211 (citing Aslinger v. State, 2 N.E.3d 84, 95 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), clarified on other grounds on reh'g), including whether the defendant has “substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character,” Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122.

[14] Padilla-Castellanos was born in Honduras and moved to the United States in 2013. Padilla-Castellanos is not a United States citizen and does not have legal residency; he recognized at both the guilty plea hearing and sentencing hearing in this case that he would likely be deported because of his convictions. While in the United States, Padilla-Castellanos was self-employed as a freelance construction worker. At the time of the instant offenses, Padilla-Castellanos was on pretrial release in another cause in which he was charged with unlawful carrying of a handgun as Class A misdemeanor. Aside from this separate misdemeanor cause, Padilla-Castellanos has no other known criminal history.

[15] Padilla-Castellanos has shown some remorse for his crimes. In his presentence investigation report, Padilla-Castellanos “indicated he feels bad if he did hurt anyone because he truly does not remember what happened.” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 111. Although Padilla-Castellanos pled guilty, he has not taken full responsibility for his actions. Padilla-Castellanos stated in his presentence investigation report: “All I remember is that I was with my friend Anibal and he gave me a drink. Now that [I] think of it I believe he put drugs in my drink because all I remember was waking up in a hospital. I don't remember anything of the accusations.” Id. at 111, 114.

[16] Considering the serious nature of Padilla-Castellanos's offense and his character, we cannot say that Padilla-Castellanos has produced compelling evidence demonstrating that the nature of his offense or his character renders his advisory sentence inappropriate. See Lane, 232 N.E.3d 119; Kincaid, 171 N.E.3d at 1042 (citing Fernbach, 954 N.E.2d at 1089). We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code §§ 35-42-5-1(a)(2), 35-41-5-1.

2.   Id. § 35-42-2-1(a)(1), (b)(2)(A).

3.   Id. § 35-42-2-1(c)(1), (g)(2).

4.   Id. § 35-47-4-3(b).

5.   Id. § 35-42-2-1(c)(1), (e)(1).

6.   Id. § 35-42-2-2(a), (b)(1)(A).

7.   It was not necessary for the trial court to vacate Padilla-Castellanos's other convictions based on double jeopardy because “[d]efendants who plead guilty to achieve favorable outcomes give up a plethora of substantive claims and procedural rights, such as challenges to convictions that would otherwise constitute double jeopardy.” Hayes v. State, 906 N.E.2d 819, 821 n.2 (Ind. 2009) (quoting Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35, 40 (Ind. 2004)).

Felix, Judge.

Judges Pyle and Weissmann concur. Pyle, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.