KRICK v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Nathan Robert Krick (“Krick”), appeals, following his guilty plea, his sentence for Level 6 felony battery against a public safety officer ¹ and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent (“ACE”) of .15 or more.² Krick argues that his sentence is inappropriate. Concluding that Krick has failed to show that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether Krick's sentence is inappropriate.

Facts 3

[3] On February 24, 2024, Krick, who had an ACE of .32%, operated a vehicle on State Road 3 in Rush County and rearended another person's vehicle. When deputies were transporting Krick to the hospital, Krick struck a deputy and chipped the deputy's tooth.

[4] The State charged Krick with: (1) Level 5 felony battery resulting in injury to a public safety official; (2) Level 5 felony battery resulting in injury to a public safety official; (3) Level 6 felony intimidation; (4) Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement; (5) Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an ACE of .15 or more; and (6) Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person.

[5] A few months later, in August 2024, Krick entered into a plea agreement. In his initial plea agreement, Krick agreed to plead guilty to the lesser included offense of Level 6 felony battery against a public safety officer and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an ACE of .15 or more in exchange for the State's dismissal of the remaining four charges. The initial plea agreement also called for a sentencing recommendation that Krick be sentenced to concurrent terms of two and one-half years for Krick's Level 6 felony offense and one year for his Class A misdemeanor offense. The initial plea agreement's sentencing recommendation provided that, for that aggregate two-and one-half-year sentence, Krick would serve one and one-half years executed in community corrections and one year suspended to probation.

[6] The trial court rejected the plea agreement and, in its order, explained that Krick's initial plea agreement “as tendered [wa]s inappropriately light in view of [Krick's] criminal history and circumstances alleged in the probable cause affidavit.” (App. Vol. 2 at 83). Thereafter, Krick entered into a plea agreement, in which he pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of Level 6 felony battery against a public safety officer and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an ACE of .15 or more and agreed to have sentencing open to the trial court. The trial court accepted the revised plea agreement.

[7] At the time of Krick's sentencing hearing, Krick was twenty-nine years old. When sentencing Krick, the trial court noted that it had reviewed the parties’ arguments, the facts surrounding Krick's offenses as contained in the probable cause affidavit, and the PSI. Specifically, the trial court noted the aggressive nature of Krick's behavior on the day of his offenses, including aggression towards police officers and medical staff. The PSI indicated that during Krick's offenses, he had made “numerous threats” to the officers, including a threat that he wanted to kill the officers. (App. Vol. 2 at 79). Additionally, the PSI revealed that, in 2016, Krick had been sentenced to five years of probation after being arrested for fleeing and evading the police, wanton endangerment of a police officer, and operating a vehicle under the influence. The PSI also revealed that Krick had reported that he had started consuming alcohol around age thirteen, that he had started to consume it daily at age seventeen, and that he had not consumed any alcohol since his arrest. During Krick's presentence interview, Krick told the probation officer that he had never received alcohol treatment, he did not feel that he needed any such treatment, and he believed that he could just remain sober. During the hearing, Krick apologized to the officers, stated that he had maintained his sobriety, and asked for the trial court “to have mercy on [him].” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 17).

[8] The trial court imposed a two and one-half (21/212) year sentence for Krick's conviction of Level 6 felony battery against a public safety officer and a one (1) year sentence for his Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an ACE of .15 or more conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently, resulting in an aggregate sentence of two and one-half (21/212) years to be executed in the Indiana Department of Correction.

[9] Krick now appeals.

Decision

[10] Krick argues that his aggregate two-and-one-half-year sentence is inappropriate. We disagree.

[11] We may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). The defendant has the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). The principal role of a Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). “Appellate Rule 7(B) analysis is not to determine whether another sentence is more appropriate but rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), reh'g denied.

[12] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge that the advisory sentence “is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. Krick pleaded guilty and was convicted of Level 6 felony battery against a public safety officer and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an ACE of .15 or more. A person who commits a Level 6 felony “shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between six (6) months and two and one-half (21/212) years, with the advisory sentence being one (1) year.” I.C. § 35-50-2-7(b). A person who commits a Class A misdemeanor “shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than one (1) year[.]” I.C. § 35-50-3-2. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of two-and-one-half years for Krick's Level 6 felony conviction and one year for his Class A misdemeanor conviction.

[13] Turning first to the nature of Krick's offenses, we note that Krick drank alcohol and then decided to drive a car. Krick, who had a 0.32 ACE level, rearended another vehicle. When a deputy was transporting Krick to the hospital, Krick struck the deputy and chipped the deputy's tooth. He exhibited aggressive and threatening behavior towards law enforcement officers upon his arrest.

[14] In reviewing Krick's character, we note that “[a] defendant's life and conduct are illustrative of his or her character.” Morris v. State, 114 N.E.3d 531, 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. We acknowledge that Krick expressed his remorse during the sentencing hearing. However, Krick, who reported that he had been consuming alcohol on a daily basis since the age of seventeen until the time of his arrest, stated that he had not sought and did not need any treatment. The PSI showed that Krick's criminal history included being sentenced to five years of probation in 2016 for fleeing and evading the police, wanton endangerment of a police officer, and operating a vehicle under the influence. Such criminal history reflects poorly on Krick's character. See Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (explaining that any criminal history reflects poorly on a person's character); Caraway v. State, 959 N.E.2d 847, 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (explaining that a defendant's substance abuse and failure to seek treatment may be considered an aggravating circumstance), trans. denied.

[15] After a full review of the record on appeal, we conclude that Krick has not persuaded us that his aggregate sentence for his convictions of Level 6 felony battery against a public safety officer and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an ACE of .15 or more is inappropriate. Therefore, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.

2.   I.C. § 9-30-5-1.

Pyle, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.