Lewis Robert Siegrist, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] After gaining control of a gun during an altercation, Lewis Siegrist shot the victim and fled with the weapon. He later pleaded guilty to Level 3 felony aggravated battery and Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Siegrist—who was on probation at the time of the offenses and has an extensive criminal history—received a ten-year aggregate sentence for both offenses. On appeal, he claims that the trial court erred by failing to properly credit his guilty plea when sentencing him and that his sentences are inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts

[2] Siegrist shot Robert Grubb during an altercation outside a home where Grubb's girlfriend lived. Grubb and his girlfriend had been arguing, and Grubb was leaving the home just as Siegrist arrived. Siegrist then followed Grubb outside and approached him aggressively to tell him not to come back. When Grubb pulled a handgun, a struggle ensued. Siegrist gained control of the weapon and shot Grubb through the hand and shoulder. Siegrist then took Grubb's firearm and cellphone, preventing Grubb from calling 911. When Siegrist went back into the home, he told the people inside that the gunfire they had just heard was merely a warning shot and that Grubb had not been injured. Siegrist then left and drove to a neighboring town.

[3] When officers eventually located Siegrist at a gas station and attempted to arrest him, Siegrist threatened to kill himself by pulling out the handgun and pointing it at his head. Officers recovered the firearm and took Siegrist into custody. The recovered handgun's caliber matched the shell casing found outside the home. Grubb's phone was later found alongside a nearby highway and appeared to have been thrown out of a car window.

[4] Based on these events, the State charged Siegrist with six offenses, including Level 1 felony attempted murder. Facing substantial prison time, Siegrist pleaded guilty to only two offenses: Level 3 felony aggravated battery and Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The plea agreement capped his aggregate sentence at ten years.

[5] During sentencing, the trial court identified as aggravating circumstances Siegrist's criminal history and that he was on probation for Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine when he committed the instant offenses. The court found as mitigating circumstances that the victim provoked the altercation by drawing a firearm which explained Siegrist's reaction. The trial court sentenced Siegrist to ten years for aggravated battery and six years for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, both to be fully executed but served concurrently.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Siegrist appeals his sentence, arguing both that the trial court failed to recognize his guilty plea as a mitigating factor and that his sentence is inappropriate.¹ Unpersuaded by either argument, we affirm.

I. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion

[7] To the extent that Siegrist suggests the trial court erroneously failed to consider his guilty plea as a mitigating factor, we review such decision for an abuse of discretion. One way a trial court abuses its discretion is by omitting from its sentencing statement a mitigating factor that is both significant and clearly supported by the record. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490-91 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). The trial court is not “obligated to explain why” it did not find a circumstance to be mitigating. Id. at 493.

[8] Here, the trial court gave a detailed sentencing statement at Siegrist's hearing, identifying both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The court found Siegrist's criminal history and the fact that he was on probation at the time of the offense as aggravating factors. The court also recognized as a mitigating factor that the victim provoked the altercation by pulling the firearm, thereby explaining Siegrist's actions.

[9] Though Siegrist claims that his guilty plea should have been recognized as a mitigating factor because it allowed the State to avoid the uncertainty of trial, he fails to recognize that he received the same benefit, and more. See Anglemyer, 875 N.E.2d at 221 (“[A] guilty plea may not be significantly mitigating when ․ the defendant receives a substantial benefit in return for the plea.”). Siegrist avoided trial on Level 1 felony attempted murder, which carries a sentencing range of 20 to 40 years, and instead pleaded guilty to significantly less serious offenses. Additionally, under the plea agreement, four of his six charges were dismissed, and his maximum sentencing exposure was capped at ten years. Given these substantial benefits, we cannot say the trial court erred by omitting Siegrist's guilty plea as a mitigating factor in its sentencing statement.

II. Siegrist's Sentence Is Not Inappropriate

[10] Siegrist also argues his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). This rule permits an appellate court to revise a sentence 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.” App. R. 7(B). We give “substantial deference” to the trial court's sentencing decision, attempting only “to leaven the outliers” rather than “achieve a perceived ‘correct’ sentence.” Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014) (citation omitted). The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that his sentence is inappropriate. Reid v. State, 876 N.E.2d 1114, 1116 (Ind. 2007).

[11] Regarding the nature of the offenses, “the advisory sentence is the starting point the Legislature selected as appropriate for the crime committed.” Brown v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1, 4 (Ind. 2014). Siegrist's conviction for Level 3 felony aggravated battery carried a sentencing range of 3 to 16 years with an advisory sentence of 9 years. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5. Thus, his ten-year sentence on this count is below the maximum and just one year above the advisory. Siegrist was also sentenced to the advisory sentence of six years on his conviction for Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5. The trial court minimized his incarceration time by ordering these two sentences to run concurrently. This led to a ten-year aggregate sentence, the maximum allowed by his plea agreement. We are not persuaded that this is inappropriate.

[12] The nature of Siegrist's offense reveals a pattern of violence and deliberate obstruction of justice. During a confrontation with Grubb, Siegrist discharged a firearm into Grubb's hand and shoulder, causing serious bodily injury, then repeatedly sought to prevent the victim from seeking medical assistance. After stealing Grubb's phone, Siegrist told his friends, who had heard the gunfire and asked him about it, that he had merely fired a warning shot but had not hit him. When law enforcement attempted to apprehend him, Siegrist threatened to shoot himself, creating a potentially volatile situation for responding officers and demonstrating a continued willingness to use deadly force. This record suggests Siegrist's actions went far beyond a mere defensive response to his dispute with Grubb, instead revealing a series of actions designed to avoid accountability.

[13] Regarding Siegrist's character, the record reveals an extensive criminal history spanning decades. See Moss v. State, 13 N.E.3d 440, 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (“Even a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendant's character.”). Siegrist has been convicted of multiple felonies, including escape, domestic battery, intimidation, and possession of methamphetamine. He has been granted probation or suspended sentences in over ten cases, with at least five documented revocations for violations of court-ordered supervision. In fact, Siegrist was on probation for possession of methamphetamine when he committed the instant offenses.

[14] While Siegrist requests treatment rather than incarceration to address his substance abuse, he fails to recognize that he has already been given numerous opportunities for rehabilitation. For example, he previously participated in reentry court, a community transition program serving as an alternative to traditional incarceration, but was terminated from the program after multiple violations. Moreover, Siegrist fails to explain how this violent offense—shooting Grubb and fleeing with his phone and gun—was related to his substance abuse. Therefore, nothing in the record suggests that Siegrist's character presents any compelling reason for sentencing relief.

[15] Given the violent and dangerous nature of his offenses and his lengthy history of criminal offenses and failed attempts at rehabilitation, Siegrist has failed to show that his ten-year sentence is inappropriate.

[16] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Siegrist, and his ten-year executed sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. We affirm.

Conclusion

FOOTNOTES

1.   In his appellate brief, Siegrist does not distinguish these two claims. He purports to raise only the appropriateness issue, but within that argument, he claims the trial court abused its discretion by failing to recognize his guilty plea as a mitigating factor. Despite this lack of clarity in his briefing, and the improper blending of these claims, we understand him to raise a distinct abuse of discretion argument and will address it accordingly.

Weissmann, Judge.

Judges Bailey and Brown concur. Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.