Bruce W. Brock, Sr., Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Bruce Brock pleaded guilty to theft, a Level 5 felony. The trial court sentenced Brock to four years, with one year executed and three years suspended to probation. Brock appeals and claims that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider a mitigating factor when sentencing him. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.

Issue

[2] Brock presents one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its sentencing discretion by failing to find a particular factor as mitigating.

Facts

[3] In 2020, Cathy Paradise was a retiree who lived in a home on a sixty-acre lot in Brown County. Paradise moved into the home in the 1990s, when she married her late husband, who died in July 2020. Shortly after her husband's death, Paradise decided to build a new, smaller home on the lot and sell the older house. Paradise knew Brock's mother, and Paradise saw positive reviews for Brock's construction business online. Paradise and Brock met, discussed the project, and signed a contract for Brock to build the home.

[4] On September 3, 2020, Paradise paid Brock $5,000 so that Brock could obtain the necessary permits and plans for the home. Brock, however, never provided Paradise with the floor plans he said he would give her, nor did he obtain the permits. Two weeks later, on September 16, 2020, Brock told Paradise that he needed payment for materials; he also stated that the Covid-19 pandemic was delaying his ability to obtain the materials. Paradise, therefore, wrote Brock a check for $60,000. On September 25, 2020, Paradise wrote Brock another check for $100,000 to pay for materials.

[5] After several weeks of delays, subcontractor Chris Fewell built a basement for the home. Brock, however, did not pay Fewell for his work, and Fewell asked Paradise to pay him. When Paradise contacted Brock about this, Brock told her that he would pay Fewell. Brock, however, did not pay Fewell. When Fewell threatened to file a lien against Paradise's property, Paradise paid Fewell $12,980.

[6] Paradise continued to contact Brock and ask him to complete the construction. In May 2021, subcontractors began to build a frame for the house. Brock again failed to pay the subcontractors, so they began to ask Paradise for payment. This time, however, Paradise refused to pay the subcontractors. In June 2021, Brock came to the property, but Paradise never saw him after this. Because no other work was done on the project, Paradise fired Brock in August 2021 and hired another builder to complete the project.

[7] When the new builder went to the property, the basement contained standing water, mold, and moss. The subfloor had rotted and was unusable. And the materials that had been left on site were unusable. Paradise paid $50,000 to have the already-completed construction demolished, except for the basement, which required extensive rehabilitation. To complete the construction of the house, Paradise had to take out a $100,000 mortgage.

[8] Shortly after firing Brock from the project, Paradise called local law enforcement, who began to investigate the situation. This investigation revealed that Brock had deposited Paradise's funds into his company's bank account, then immediately began to spend the funds for his own personal use. For example, in September 2020, Brock purchased a new Indianapolis 500 edition Chevrolet Camaro. The next month, Brock purchased two more of the same car, spending a total of $12,000 for the down payments. Brock posted photos of the vehicles online and stated that he purchased the cars for himself and his sons. Brock also used the funds he received from Paradise to pay for items such as food and gasoline.

[9] On September 23, 2021, the State charged Brock with theft, a Level 5 felony, and criminal mischief, a Level 6 felony. On September 22, 2023, the State filed an amended information that omitted the criminal mischief count. On January 8, 2024, the parties entered into an agreement whereby Brock would plead guilty to theft, a Level 5 felony, and sentencing would be left to the discretion of the trial court. The trial court accepted the agreement that same day.

[10] At a sentencing hearing on March 21, 2024, the trial court found two aggravating factors: the victim was over sixty-five years old, and the harm, injury, or loss was significant and greater than that necessary to prove the offense. The trial court found as mitigating that Brock had accepted responsibility for his actions, expressed remorse, and had no prior criminal history. The trial court imposed a sentence of four years, with one year executed and three years suspended to probation. The trial court also entered a restitution order in the amount of $272,578.14. Following Brock's successful petition to file a belated notice of appeal, this appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[11] Brock claims that the trial court abused its sentencing discretion by failing to consider as a mitigating circumstance that the Covid-19 pandemic caused financial stress on Brock. We disagree.

[12] Sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and are reviewed on appeal only for an abuse of that discretion. Howard v. State, 236 N.E.3d 735, 740 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (citing Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1197 (Ind. 2018)). A trial court abuses its discretion only if its decision is “ ‘clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.’ ” Id. (quoting Schuler v. State, 132 N.E.3d 903, 904 (Ind. 2019)). A trial court abuses its sentencing discretion in several ways, including: (1) failing to enter a sentencing statement at all; (2) entering a sentencing statement in which the aggravating and mitigating factors are unsupported by the record; (3) entering a sentencing statement that does not include reasons that are clearly supported by the record and advanced for consideration; and (4) entering a sentencing statement in which the reasons provided in the statement are improper as a matter of law. Id. (citing Ackerman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 171, 193 (Ind. 2016)).

[13] Here, Brock claims that the trial court's sentencing statement did not include a mitigator that he advanced for consideration and which was clearly supported by the record. The trial court “ ‘is not obligated to accept the defendant's contentions as to what constitutes a mitigating circumstance or to give the proffered mitigating circumstance[ ] the same weight the defendant does.’ ” Weisheit v. State, 26 N.E.3d 3, 9 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Wilkes v. State, 917 N.E.2d 675, 690 (Ind. 2009)). “ ‘An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating factor requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.’ ” Russell v. State, 234 N.E.3d 829, 847 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Carter v. State, 711 N.E.2d 835, 838 (Ind. 1999)).

[14] Brock claims that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider the Covid-19 pandemic, and the economic effect it had on Brock, as a mitigating factor. Brock details the impact the pandemic had on Indiana, and the State's response thereto. Brock then concludes:

There is a significant nexus of all these conditions to this case, because Brock was attempting to complete the Paradise project during this perfect storm of upstream supply chain disruption, material inflation, labor shortages, government safety intervention, and so forth. Some builders survived these conditions. Others were not so lucky. Brock took responsibility by pleading guilty, but he was entitled to have the trial court consider COVID-19 as a mitigating circumstance.

Appellant's Br. p. 13.

[15] We agree with the State that Brock's alleged mitigator is unsupported by the record. Brock began spending the money given to him by Paradise for his personal use shortly after he received it. He spent over $12,000 on new sports cars in the first few months alone. He also spent the money on personal items such as food and gasoline. All the while, Brock assured Paradise that the project would be completed. Brock had two subcontractors perform some work on the project but failed to pay the subcontractors for their work.

[16] Brock was not simply the victim of the economic downturn caused by the pandemic. Instead, he squandered Paradise's money on unrelated items while assuring her that the project would be completed. The trial court determined that these assurances were false and that Brock had no intention of completing the project. We will not second-guess the trial court's decision on this matter. We, therefore, cannot say that the trial court abused its considerable discretion by failing to consider the Covid-19 pandemic as a significant mitigating factor. Brock's argument that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider the Covid-19 pandemic as a mitigator strains credulity.

Conclusion

[17] The trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to consider the Covid-19 pandemic as a significant mitigating factor. We, therefore, affirm.

[18] Affirmed.

Tavitas, Judge.

Chief Judge Altice and Judge Brown concur. Altice, C.J., and Brown, J., concur.