BYRD v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Remel Byrd appeals his eighteen-year executed sentence for Level 2 felony attempted voluntary manslaughter. Byrd's sole issue on appeal is whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Finding Byrd's sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] George Flowers, the victim, is the grandfather of Vanessa Haskins, Byrd's ex-girlfriend. On the night of December 19, 2023, Haskins was at Flowers’ house when Byrd arrived and knocked on the door. Haskins initially let Byrd into the house but also told him that Flowers did not want him there.

[3] The encounter escalated after Haskins and Byrd began discussing their past relationship. Haskins gave Byrd five dollars and repeatedly told him to leave, but Byrd refused. Flowers entered the room and also directed Byrd to leave; Byrd again refused. When Byrd finally started to leave, a “scuffle” ensued as Byrd “went to swing on [Flowers.]” Ex. Vol. V, St. Ex. 2 at 5:35-5:43.

[4] Once Byrd was outside, Flowers shut the house door. Byrd then began hitting the house windows with a chair he found and started yelling, “I'm about to f*** up this spot.” Id. at 5:43-6:02. Flowers opened the door and told Byrd to stop hitting the house. Then, Byrd began hitting Flowers and, eventually, Haskins with the chair.

[5] After a few moments, Byrd started filming on his cell phone and approached Flowers again. Flowers started “swingin’ on [Byrd].” Tr. Vol. III p. 22. Byrd immediately drew a knife and repeatedly stabbed and slashed Flowers while yelling, “You wanna die [ ]? You wanna die [ ]?” Ex. Vol. V, St. Ex. 14 at 0:20-0:26. Before he left, Byrd told Haskins, “I don't care b***h. I don't care b***h. I'm comin’ back for you. I'll be back.” Ex. Vol. V, St. Ex. 2 at 6:50-6:58.

[6] Flowers was admitted to the hospital with four stab wounds: one each on his scalp, his left arm, his chest, and his abdomen. The injury on Flowers’ scalp cut an artery, and the injury on his left arm caused some mobility issues in his left hand. When Byrd was subsequently arrested, he admitted to Evansville Police Department Detective Quinton Keil (Det. Keil) that he stabbed Flowers and got rid of the weapon.

[7] On December 21st, the State charged Byrd with Level 1 felony attempted murder, Level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly weapon, and Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury. The State later amended the charging information to include Level 3 felony aggravated battery.

[8] While in jail, Byrd made several calls to his father discussing Flowers. In December 2023, Byrd told his father to make sure Flowers did not press charges. Shortly after, in January 2024, Flowers signed a statement claiming that Flowers did not want Byrd prosecuted; Flowers later testified that the document was in someone else's handwriting.

[9] On September 30, 2024, Byrd called his father again to discuss whether Flowers would testify at the upcoming trial. Despite warning Byrd that he was “talkin’ reckless” on a recorded phone line, Byrd's father agreed to “do some homework ․ to make sure everything [was] squared out.” Ex. Vol. V, St. Ex. 9 at 0:50-0:55, 2:10-2:20. The next day, Byrd's father told Byrd, “That motherf****r ain't gonna come to that motherf*****g situation” and that “if they do come ․ they ain't gonna be walkin’ round this motherf****r.” Ex. Vol. V, St. Ex. 10 at 0:00-0:18.

[10] Several days later, at Byrd's October jury trial, Flowers was uncooperative and attempted to invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions. Flowers repeatedly stated he was “not filin’ any charges” and alleged he did not remember Byrd stabbing him. Tr. Vol. III p. 22. The court directed Flowers to answer the questions, but Flowers’ noncooperation persisted until he began declaring, “Just lock me up. Just lock me up. Just lock me up.” Id. at 24.

[11] The jury found Byrd guilty of a lesser-included offense, Level 2 felony attempted voluntary manslaughter. The trial court held a sentencing hearing in November 2024. Byrd's father testified and denied threatening Flowers. He also testified that Flowers was like an uncle to Byrd and that the “situation” on the night of the stabbing “got out of hand because of [Byrd's] drug addiction.” Id. at 139. Byrd's father explained Byrd struggled with substance use but was in denial and “tries to hide it.” Id. He also offered that he was often absent from Byrd's life, that Byrd's mother passed away when Byrd was in his twenties, and that Byrd had three dependent children that did not live with him.

[12] The court also considered Byrd's extensive criminal history including a prior felony and multiple misdemeanor convictions and probation violations: among them are convictions for domestic violence, domestic battery, and two batteries resulting in bodily injury. The court recognized several mitigators: Byrd's family support; some evidence that Flowers instigated the incident; the impact on Byrd's three dependent children; and some remorse expressed in Byrd's letter, although the court questioned Byrd's sincerity. As aggravators, the court considered: evidence that Byrd indirectly violated the no-contact order with Flowers; Byrd's high risk to reoffend; and Byrd's criminal history, including a prior work release revocation and four violent battery-related convictions. The trial court sentenced Byrd to eighteen years in the Indiana Department of Corrections (DOC). Byrd now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

Byrd's sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

[13] Byrd contends his eighteen-year sentence is inappropriate and warrants revision in light of the nature of the offense and his character. We disagree.

[14] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) permits an appellate court to 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.” We give “considerable deference” to the trial court's sentencing decision and attempt only to “leaven the outliers” rather than achieve a “perceived ‘correct’ result” in every case. Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 122 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222, 1225 (Ind. 2008)). Our deference to the trial court prevails unless we are “overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense and the defendant's character.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). A defendant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). “Whether a sentence should be deemed 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.’ ” McCain v. State, 148 N.E.3d 977, 985 (Ind. 2020) (quoting Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225).

[15] We first consider the statutory range for the class of the offense. Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 494. Here, Byrd's Level 2 felony attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction has a sentencing range between ten and thirty years and an advisory sentence of seventeen and one-half years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5 (2014). Byrd's eighteen-year sentence is only six months more than the advisory sentence.

[16] As to the nature of the offenses, Byrd argues that his sentence is inappropriate because Flowers instigated the physical altercation and he merely responded with deadly force in an act of sudden heat. Byrd contends that he and Flowers reconciled by the time of his trial, as evidenced by Flowers’ noncooperation as a State witness.

[17] Byrd's efforts to minimize his actions ignore the relevant facts supporting his sentence. He refused to leave Flowers’ property despite repeatedly being told to do so by Haskins and Flowers. When he initially exited Flowers’ home, Byrd began hitting the house with a chair, then struck Haskins and Flowers with the chair. Before he approached Flowers a final time, Byrd began filming the incident on his cell phone. He immediately drew a knife and repeatedly stabbed Flowers while yelling, “You wanna die [ ]? You wanna die [ ]?” Ex. Vol. V, St. Ex. 14 at 0:20-0:26. Then, Byrd turned to Haskins again before leaving and threatened that he was “comin’ back for [her].” Ex. Vol. V, St. Ex. 2 at 6:50-6:58. Byrd continued to engage and escalate the conflict with Flowers until he ultimately attacked Flowers with a knife. The fact that Flowers swung at Byrd neither negates Byrd's culpability and the severity of his crime nor portrays the nature of his offense in a positive light.

[18] Turning to Byrd's character, he directs our attention to his difficult childhood, past employment, and struggles with drug addiction to argue his character weighs in favor of a sentence revision. However, Byrd's presentence investigation report revealed he had been using methamphetamine since he was in his early thirties, and he was thirty-nine years old at the time of sentencing. And Byrd's criminal history involves several drug-related offenses, including three prior convictions for possession of marijuana and one for possession of hashish. A sentence revision is unwarranted where Byrd was aware of his substance use problem but did not take appropriate steps to treat it. See Hape v. State, 903 N.E.2d 977, 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

[19] Byrd's criminal history also includes convictions for domestic violence in 2021, domestic battery in 2008, and two batteries resulting in bodily injury in 2005. Plus, he violated probation in several prior cases and was unsuccessfully discharged from work release. Byrd's prior convictions reflect poorly on his character, demonstrating a pattern of violent behavior consistent with his actions in this case. See generally Moss v. State, 13 N.E.3d 440, 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (observing that a criminal history “is a poor reflection of a defendant's character”).

[20] In sum, Byrd has not presented compelling evidence to overcome the substantial deference we afford the trial court. Byrd's sentence, therefore, is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

[21] Affirmed.

Scheele, Judge.

Foley, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.