KUJAWA v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Brandon Lee Kujawa appeals the aggregate six-year sentence imposed upon him following his pleas of guilty to Auto Theft, as a Level 6 felony;¹ Unlawful Use of Body Armor, a Level 6 felony;² Unlawful Carrying of a Handgun, as a Level 5 felony;³ and Resisting Law Enforcement, as a Level 6 felony,⁴ with respect to his placement for years four through six. He presents the sole issue of whether the order that he serve the latter three years of his executed sentence in the Department of Correction (“DOC”) is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On May 15, 2023, Jonathan Coffman reported to City of Lafayette police officers that his moped had been stolen. Responding officers observed a moped weaving in and out of traffic and began to pursue it. The driver, later identified as Kujawa, abandoned the moped and fled on foot. Kujawa was eventually apprehended inside a residential shed, wearing a ballistic vest, and in possession of a handgun. The moped had been hot-wired.

[3] In connection with those events, Kujawa pleaded guilty to Auto Theft, Unlawful Use of Body Armor, Unlawful Carrying of a Handgun, and Resisting Law Enforcement. On July 29, 2024, Kujawa and the State appeared for a sentencing hearing. After some discussion, the parties agreed that the plea agreement required that Kujawa receive an executed sentence of six years, but the trial court could exercise discretion as to Kujawa's placement in years four through six. The trial court ordered that Kujawa serve the entirety of his sentence in the DOC. Kujawa now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[4] To support the decision that Kujawa be incarcerated in the DOC for the entirety of his sentence, the trial court articulated its findings as to aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The trial court found Kujawa's criminal history, violation of probation, and history of jail conduct violations to be aggravating circumstances. In mitigation, the trial court found that Kujawa had pled guilty; he had a history of mental health issues and substance abuse; and he had a difficult family history coupled with current family support. Kujawa argues that his “very troubled childhood” and drug use from “a very early age” warrants placement in a community corrections program rather than the DOC for the latter three years of his sentence. Appellant's Brief at 10.

[5] Although “the place that a sentence is to be served is an appropriate focus for application of our review and revise authority,” Biddinger v. State, 868 N.E.2d 407, 414 (Ind. 2007), it is nonetheless “quite difficult for a defendant to prevail on a claim that the placement of his or her sentence is inappropriate.” Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “As a practical matter, trial courts know the feasibility of alternative placements in particular counties or communities. For example, a trial court is aware of the availability, costs, and entrance requirements of community corrections placements in a specific locale.” Id. at 343-44.

[6] Accordingly, the placement aspect of Kujawa's sentence is inappropriate only if we determine that it is inappropriate in light of both the nature of his offenses and his character. See Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) (“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”). The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The appellant bears the burden of persuading this Court that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

[7] The nature of the offense analysis compares the defendant's actions with the required showing to sustain a conviction under the charged offense, Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008), while the character of the offender analysis permits broader consideration of a defendant's character, Douglas v. State, 878 N.E.2d 873, 881 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Ultimately, our determination of appropriateness “turns on our sense of 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.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224. Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant's character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[8] As for the nature of the offenses, Kujawa took a moped without authorization; it was recovered in an altered condition. He fled from officers and was found wearing body armor. Kujawa, a convicted felon, was also found to be in possession of a handgun. As for his character, Kujawa has consistently abused drugs and failed to conduct himself in a law-abiding manner. At age twenty-four, Kujawa has amassed ten misdemeanor and four felony convictions. He was previously adjudicated a delinquent child. When he committed the instant offenses, Kujawa was on probation. After his incarceration in jail awaiting disposition of the instant charges, Kujawa had allegedly committed seventeen jail conduct violations. He has a history of prior probation violations. In sum, Kujawa has failed to persuade us that his placement is inappropriate.

Conclusion

[9] Kujawa has not met his burden of demonstrating that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

[10] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a).

2.   I.C. § 35-47-5-13(b).

3.   I.C. § 35-47-2-1.5(b).

4.   I.C. § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3).

Bailey, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Foley, J., concur.