Darrell R. Rhyme, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Darrell R. Rhyme was convicted of Level 6 felony identity deception ¹ and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement ² and sentenced to 850 days in the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). Rhyme now appeals, claiming his sentence is inappropriate given the nature of his offense and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On the night of March 3, 2023, Officer Kaitlin Jackowicz observed a red car pull out of a gas station in Greensburg, Indiana and into a right turn lane with its left turn signal on. The car then turned left onto the next road. Officer Jackowicz followed the car as it made its way to I-74 travelling eastbound. Once on I-74, the car moved into the left lane and travelled 10 m.p.h. under the speed limit.

[3] Officer Jackowicz initiated a traffic stop. When she approached the vehicle, the officer saw Jamesha McChristine in the driver's seat and Rhyme in the passenger's seat. She also smelled “burnt marijuana coming from the vehicle.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 86. When asked for identification, McChristine said her name was Dasjay Warren, she was travelling from Illinois, and she had left her driver's license at home. Rhyme provided the name and birth date of his brother, Jarrell Randell, and said he was from Indiana.

[4] Officer Jackowicz used the information given to her to search for and verify McChristine's driving status. When no results appeared for Dasjay Warren, Officer Jackowicz suspected it was a false name and proceeded to check Rhyme's information. “Jarrell Randall” came back with a pending protective order. Officer Jackowicz suspected McChristine was the protected person and decided to speak to McChristine and Rhyme separately.

[5] Around this time, Deputy Niculy Polley arrived to assist on scene. Officer Jackowicz went to the passenger's side and asked Rhyme to step out. Rhyme refused and asked why he needed to leave the car. Officer Jackowicz asked him two more times to step out. After the third time, Officer Jackowicz saw McChristine put the car into drive. As Officer Jackowicz asked McChristine to put the car back into park, Rhyme yelled, “Go, go, go,” and they sped off. Id. at 108.

[6] Officer Jackowicz and Deputy Polley pursued McChristine and Rhyme from Greensburg to Batesville, reaching speeds of over 120 m.p.h. The car chase ended after McChristine ran over stop sticks,³ exited the interstate, crossed over multiple lanes of traffic and a curb, then came to a stop near a gas station. McChristine and Rhyme exited the car and ran in different directions. Rhyme slipped and fell near the car.

[7] Deputy Polley arrived at the scene first and saw Rhyme on the ground. He instructed Rhyme “to stop and stay on the ground[,]” but Rhyme got up and ran. Id. at 114. Deputy Polley attempted to grab Rhyme as he ran past, then started to chase him on foot. When Deputy Polley realized he could not catch up, he deployed his taser. When the taser hit Rhyme, he fell and his face skidded across the pavement. Rhyme was then taken to a nearby hospital for his injuries.

[8] Officer Jackowicz initially recommended charges be filed against “Jarrell Randall” but later came across an online fundraiser under Rhyme's name featuring a picture of McChristine and Rhyme, along with a description of how Rhyme was injured. Further investigation led Officer Jackowicz to Rhyme's identification information and an active warrant against him in the State of Illinois.

[9] The State charged Rhyme with Level 6 felony identity deception, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana.⁴

[10] At his jury trial, Rhyme admitted to giving his brother's name to Officer Jackowicz because he was scared and thought doing so would put him “in a safer situation because I'm in Indiana and my brother's from Indiana.” Id. at 141. When asked about his interaction with Deputy Polley, Rhyme testified Deputy Polley “absolutely lied” about telling Rhyme to remain on the ground, stating, “There was no physical touching. There was no physical—like verbal telling me to stop or nothing.” Id. Rhyme testified he only moved “three, four steps” away from the car because he was scared one of the police vehicles would hit him. Id. at 133.

[11] The jury found Rhyme guilty of identity deception and resisting law enforcement but not guilty of possession of marijuana.

[12] At sentencing, Rhyme apologized for “going through trials and doing all this for a misunderstanding” and stated he “[took] full responsibility for [his] actions[.]” Id. at 173. He then asked for “a little leeway for the—the best sentence possible” and requested a total sentence of 380 days. Id.

[13] The State presented several court records from the state of Illinois indicating Rhyme had prior convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm, manufacturing or dealing cannabis, and obstructing justice. See id. at 175–76; Ex. Vol. 1 at 4–46. The State also argued Rhyme showed a lack of remorse by characterizing the instant offense as “a big misunderstanding.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 177. The State requested a sentence of 850 days.

[14] As aggravating factors, the trial court found Rhyme has a prior criminal history and his conduct exceeded the necessary elements for his conviction. As a potential mitigating factor, Rhyme argued his conduct did not pose a threat to another person or to property. The trial court rejected Rhyme's proposed mitigator, stating Rhyme “[c]ertainly could have harmed the property there, the gas station, [and] could have harmed the police officer.” Id. at 179. The trial court also rejected Rhyme's show of remorse as a mitigator. The trial court only found Rhyme's status as a soon-to-be father as a mitigating factor. The trial court sentenced Rhyme to concurrent terms of 850 days for identity deception and 360 days for resisting law enforcement.

Rhyme's sentence is not inappropriate.

[15] Rhyme asks us to revise his sentence. Rhyme specifically challenges his sentence for the felony conviction.⁵ See Appellant's Br. at 9–10 (“Rhyme does not separately challenge his sentence for resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor as that sentence was ordered to be served concurrently[.]”). However, when reviewing a sentence, 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.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E. 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008).

[16] The Indiana Constitution authorizes this Court to review and revise a trial court's sentencing decision as provided by rule. Ind. Const. art. 7, § 6. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides we 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 principal role of appellate review is to leaven the outliers, not to achieve a perceived correct sentence in each case. Conley v. State, 183 N.E.3d 276, 288 (Ind. 2022). Therefore, “we reserve our 7(B) authority for exceptional cases.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 160 (Ind. 2019) (per curiam).

[17] “[S]entencing is principally a discretionary function in which the trial court's judgment should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. “Such deference should prevail 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). The two prongs of 7(B) review are “separate inquiries to ultimately be balanced in determining whether a sentence is inappropriate.” Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 126 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Conner v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)). “[T]o 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.

[18] The question “is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Helsley v. State, 43 N.E.3d 225, 228 (Ind. 2015) (quoting King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)) (emphasis omitted). Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate “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. The defendant bears the burden of persuading us a revised sentence is warranted. Cramer v. State, 240 N.E.3d 693, 698 (Ind. 2024).

A. Nature of Rhyme's Offense

[19] The trial court found the nature and circumstances of Rhyme's offense went “beyond those necessary for the elements of the offense.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 178. A person commits identity deception when the person, with intent to harm or defraud, knowingly or intentionally uses identifying information to profess to be another person. See I.C. § 35-43-5-3.5(a). Rhyme gave his brother's name to Officer Jackowicz “in the hopes that [Officer Jackowicz] would allow him to peacefully go about his business.” Appellant's Br. at 10. At the time, Rhyme had an active warrant and assumed his brother's name would “come back clean and clear.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 140. Rhyme's deception continued until Officer Jackowicz learned of the online fundraiser, after she had sent an initial report to file charges against Randall.

[20] A person resists law enforcement when they knowingly or intentionally flee from an officer after being ordered to stop by visible or audible means. See I.C. § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3). Rhyme did not follow Officer Jackowicz's instructions to leave the vehicle and encouraged McChristine to drive away by shouting, “Go, go, go.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 108. Rhyme later disobeyed Deputy Polley's instructions to remain on the ground after Rhyme fell exiting the vehicle. Instead, he got up and sprinted away.

[21] Rhyme's consistent refusal to follow directions from both officers and his rationale for using his brother's identity show a lack of restraint and regard for others, weighing against revising his sentence. The lack of compelling evidence portraying the nature of his offense in a positive light means Rhyme must make an even stronger showing regarding his character to prevail. See Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 127.

B. Rhyme's Character

[22] Rhyme's character also does not weigh in favor of revising his sentence. We analyze a defendant's character by considering a wide range of facts, such as criminal history, background, past rehabilitative efforts, and remorse. See Harris v. State, 165 N.E.3d 91, 100 (Ind. 2021). “Even a minor criminal record reflects poorly on a defendant's character.” Cramer, 240 N.E.3d at 700 (citation omitted). Rhyme has several prior convictions, including illegal possession of a firearm, manufacturing or dealing cannabis, and obstructing justice.

[23] Rhyme refers to his apology at sentencing and his admission to identity deception at trial as displays of remorse. At trial, Rhyme apologized for “going through trials and doing all this for a misunderstanding.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 173. We give substantial deference to a trial court's evaluation of a defendant's remorse, as the court hears the defendant's apology and observes his demeanor firsthand. See Hollins v. State, 145 N.E.3d 847, 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied. Here, the trial court found Rhyme was not remorseful because “[he] called it a misunderstanding and attempted to justify why he did these things.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 179.

[24] In sum, Rhyme has not presented compelling evidence to overcome the substantial deference we afford the trial court.

Conclusion

[25] Rhyme's sentence is not inappropriate.

[26] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-43-5-3.5(a) (2021).

2.   I.C. § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3) (2021).

3.   Stop sticks are used to “puncture the tire and slowly release air ․ [s]o the tire deflates slowly so that [officers] can safely get the vehicle stopped.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 94.

4.   After the chase, Officer Jackowicz conducted a search of the car and found what she identified from her training and experience as “[a]pproximately 8 grams of marijuana and some marijuana roaches,” but she did not send it to a lab for testing. Tr. Vol. 2 at 125.

5.   The sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is between six months and two and one-half years. See I.C. § 35-50-2-7(b) (2019). Rhyme's sentence is within the range but near the maximum sentence.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Judges Bradford and Pyle concur. Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.