Adrian James Dukes, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Adrian James Dukes (“Dukes”) appeals, following a guilty plea, his sentence imposed for his Level 3 felony unlawful transfer of a handgun conviction.¹ Dukes argues that his sentence is inappropriate. Concluding that his sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether Dukes’ sentence is inappropriate.

Facts 2

[3] In late April or early May 2023, fifteen-year-old Dukes lived with his mother, stepfather (“stepfather”), and sisters. During that time, Dukes and his friend, thirteen-year-old Quinton Marqtez Vann (“Vann”), were at Dukes’ house. Dukes showed Vann his stepfather's handgun (“the handgun”) and allowed Vann to take it. Just prior to that time, Vann had made comments to Dukes about wanting to shoot someone.

[4] A few days later, Dukes, Vann, and two other juveniles were walking around New Castle when they encountered forty-eight-year-old Ernest Thornsberry, Jr. (“Thornsberry”). One of the other juveniles and Vann began hurling rocks and insults at Thornsberry. Thornsberry told the juveniles to leave him alone and kept walking. However, the juveniles continued to threaten Thornsberry. At some point during this exchange, Vann displayed the handgun that he had been carrying and Thornsberry displayed a pocket knife. As Thornsberry approached the juveniles, Vann fired the handgun at Thornsberry. Dukes fled to his home, and he told his mother and stepfather that the handgun had been stolen and used in a crime. The other three juveniles fled to Lindsay Willoughby's (“Willoughby”) house.

[5] When officers arrived on the scene, they found Thornsberry lying in a pool of blood with a gunshot wound on the “back of his head[.]” (App. Vol. 2 at 27). Multiple witnesses told the officers that they had heard three or four gunshots. Emergency medical personnel transported Thornsberry to the hospital, and Thornsberry died from his injuries. The police officers recovered shell casings at the scene.

[6] Dukes, along with his mother and stepfather, spoke to New Castle Police Department officers. Based on Dukes’ statement, the police officers located and interviewed Vann and the other two juveniles. The police officers also located the handgun in a shed behind Willoughby's house.

[7] In August 2023, the State filed, with the juvenile court, a juvenile delinquency petition, in which the State alleged that Dukes had committed acts that would constitute felony aiding, inducing, or causing murder if committed by an adult. The State filed a motion of waiver of juvenile jurisdiction, and in November 2023, the juvenile court granted the State's motion, waived juvenile jurisdiction, and ordered Dukes to appear before the trial court. That same month, the State charged Dukes with felony aiding, inducing, or causing murder and Level 3 felony unlawful transfer of a handgun.

[8] In April 2024, Dukes entered into a plea agreement with the State. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Dukes pleaded guilty to Level 3 felony unlawful transfer of a handgun, and in exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the felony aiding, inducing, or causing murder charge. The plea agreement further provided that Dukes’ sentence would be determined by the trial court, but with a maximum sentence of twelve (12) years and a maximum sentence of eight (8) years executed.

[9] At Dukes’ April 2024 guilty plea hearing, the trial court, after a colloquy with Dukes, found that Dukes’ plea was freely and voluntarily made. Dukes also set forth a factual basis for his offense. The trial court took the plea agreement under advisement and set a sentencing hearing for May 2024. The trial court also ordered the probation department to prepare a presentence investigation report (“the PSI”).

[10] The PSI revealed that Dukes has had extensive contact with the juvenile courts and law enforcement. Dukes has a juvenile delinquency adjudication for committing acts that would have been Level 6 felony intimidation if committed by an adult for threatening to kill his mother and sisters. The PSI also revealed that Dukes had consistent contact with the probation department, with varying levels of intervention, since January 2022. Additionally, Dukes has had more than a dozen documented contacts with law enforcement since October 2021, with thirteen of those contacts happening while Dukes was on formal probation, supervision, or placement. The PSI also noted that Dukes had been provided the following services while on probation: (1) informal adjustment; (2) outpatient counseling; (3) mediation; (4) shelter care; (5) diagnostic placement; (6) intercept comprehensive services; (7) home checks; (8) secure detention; (9) residential placement; and (10) QRTP aftercare services.

[11] At the May 2024 sentencing hearing, Dukes testified that, after being incarcerated, he had realized that he “wanted to do better for [him]self[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 27). Dukes expressed remorse for what had happened to Thornsberry, and he also apologized to Thornberry's family. Dukes’ aunt, Erica Query (“Query”) also testified at Dukes’ sentencing hearing. Query testified that Dukes had changed “[i]mmensely” since his incarceration. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 23). Query further testified that Dukes has “turned everything around” and had received better grades in school. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 23). Query also testified that Dukes was a mentor for other students at the school and had a job at the juvenile detention center.

[12] The trial court found as aggravating circumstances that Dukes: (1) had recently violated conditions of probation, parole or pardon, community corrections placement, or pretrial release; (2) has a history of criminal or delinquent activity; and (3) had received attempts at rehabilitation under the juvenile system including informal adjustment, probation, outpatient counseling, mediation, shelter care, diagnostic placement, intercept comprehensive services, home checks, secure detention, residential placement, and QRTP aftercare services. The trial court found as mitigating circumstances: (1) Dukes’ young age; (2) Dukes had contacted law enforcement after the shooting; (3) Dukes has mental health issues; and (4) Dukes’ remorse. The trial court sentenced Dukes to twelve (12) years, with eight (8) years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”) and four (4) years suspended to probation for his Level 3 felony unlawful transfer of a handgun conviction.

[13] Dukes now appeals.

Decision

[14] Dukes argues that his sentence is inappropriate. 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on “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.” Id. at 1224. “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.

[15] 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. A person who commits a Level 3 felony “shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between three (3) and sixteen (16) years, with the advisory sentence being nine (9) years.” Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5(b). Here, Dukes pleaded guilty to Level 3 felony unlawful transfer of a handgun, and the trial court sentenced him to a twelve-year sentence, with eight years executed at the DOC and four years suspended to probation.

[16] Turning first to the nature of the offense, we note that Dukes, knowing that Vann had expressed a desire to shoot someone, gave the handgun to Vann. A few days later, Dukes, Vann, and two other juveniles threatened and threw rocks at Thornsberry. Thornsberry told the juveniles to leave him alone, but the juveniles continued to threaten him. During the altercation, Vann shot and killed Thornsberry with the handgun that Dukes had given him. See Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225 (holding that damage done to others is a factor to consider in inappropriate sentence review).

[17] Turning to Dukes’ 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. The PSI revealed that Dukes has had significant contacts with law enforcement and the juvenile system. Dukes has a juvenile adjudication for an act that would have been Level 6 felony intimidation. Such criminal history reflects poorly on Dukes’ 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). Further, Dukes had over a dozen documented interactions with the police since October 2021, including thirteen since he had been placed on probation. Dukes also committed the offense in this case while on probation in another case. We note, as did the trial court, that Dukes had been provided with multiple services while on probation. It is clear that Dukes has not responded well to previous attempts to rehabilitate his behavior.

[18] Dukes has not persuaded this Court that his twelve-year sentence, with eight years executed at the DOC and four year suspended to probation, for his Level 3 felony unlawful transfer of a firearm conviction is inappropriate. Therefore, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

[19] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-47-2-7.

Pyle, Judge.

Judges Weissmann and Felix concur. Weissmann, J., and Felix, J., concur.