KRAMP v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] In two cases, Fredrick B. Kramp pleaded guilty to three Level 6 felony offenses related to his operation of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The Marshall Superior Court consolidated Kramp's sentencing hearing in those two cases and ordered Kramp to serve an aggregate four-year sentence in the Department of Correction (“DOC”). Kramp appeals his sentence and argues that his placement in the DOC is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On June 20, 2023, Kramp collapsed in a grocery store bathroom. Kramp told a store employee that he had been drinking. The employee contacted law enforcement and provided Kramp's license plate number and a description of his vehicle. A law enforcement officer located Kramp's vehicle in the store parking lot and saw Kramp drive away.

[4] The officer followed Kramp and saw him swerve from the northbound lane into the southbound lane of traffic. Therefore, the officer initiated a traffic stop, and, upon obtaining Kramp's identification, the officer learned that Kramp is a habitual traffic violator. Kramp admitted to the officer that he had been drinking alcohol, and the officer observed signs of intoxication. After Kramp failed several sobriety tests, he refused to submit to a blood draw. The officer then obtained a warrant to draw Kramp's blood, and testing of Kramp's blood established that his ACE was 0.338.¹

[5] Thereafter, in case number 50D02-2307-F6-190 (“case number 190”), the State charged Kramp with two counts of Level 6 felony operating a vehicle with an ACE of 0.15 or more with a prior conviction and Level 6 felony operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator.

[6] Less than three weeks later, while Kramp was released on bond in case number 190, a Pizza Hut employee contacted law enforcement to complain about Kramp. When the law enforcement officer arrived at Pizza Hut, Kramp was exiting the driver's side of his vehicle. The officer observed obvious signs of intoxication, and, after Kramp refused a chemical test, the officer obtained a warrant for a blood draw. Testing of Kramp's blood established an ACE of 0.359. Under case number 50D02-2307-F6-202 (“case number 202”), the State charged Kramp with Level 6 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an ACE of 0.15 or more.

[7] On March 7, 2025, Kramp agreed to plead guilty to one count of Level 6 felony operating a vehicle with an ACE of 0.15 or more and Level 6 felony operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator in case number 190. Kramp also agreed to plead guilty to Level 6 operating a vehicle while intoxicated in case number 202. Kramp and the State agreed that the remaining charges would be dismissed and sentencing in both cases would be left to the trial court's discretion. On March 27, the trial court held a consolidated sentencing hearing in both cases.

[8] At sentencing, the trial court considered Kramp's significant criminal history, including that the offenses in these two cases were his tenth and eleventh convictions for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. In total, Kramp has twenty-four prior convictions, and five of those convictions were felonies. And Kramp's prior participation in alcohol abuse treatment programs had not been successful.

[9] Seventy-one-year-old Kramp admitted that he is an alcoholic and argued to the trial court that he was ready to address his addiction. Kramp argued that, given his physical condition,² placement in the DOC would be a hardship for him. He asked the court to place him at Serenity House, a sober living facility where he had been accepted for placement.

[10] The trial court considered Kramp's guilty plea, admission that he is an alcoholic, and his physical health as mitigating circumstances. However, the court weighed those circumstances against Kramp's criminal history spanning several decades and several states. The court noted that Kramp's first operating while intoxicated conviction occurred in 1978. Kramp also violated his probation in several cases. Because of Kramp's criminal history and unsuccessful attempts at rehabilitation, the court did not believe that probation or placement in community corrections was appropriate for Kramp. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 12.

[11] In case number 190, the trial court ordered Kramp to serve concurrent terms of two years for each of the two Level 6 felony convictions. The court then imposed a consecutive term of two years for the Level 6 felony conviction in case number 202. The court ordered Kramp to serve his four-year aggregate sentence executed in the DOC. Kramp filed a notice of appeal in both cases. On June 2, our court issued an order consolidating Kramp's appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[12] Kramp argues that his four-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), we may modify a sentence that we find is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Making this determination “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 v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008).

[13] However, sentence modification under Rule 7(B) is reserved for “a rare and exceptional case.” Livingston v. State, 113 N.E.3d 611, 612 (Ind. 2018) (per curiam). Thus, when conducting this review, we will defer to the sentence imposed by the trial court unless the defendant demonstrates compelling evidence that portrays the nature of the offenses and his character in a positive light, such as showing a lack of brutality in the offenses or showing substantial virtuous character traits. Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[14] Trial courts are permitted to sentence a person convicted of a Level 6 felony within a range of six months to two and one-half years, and the advisory sentence is one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). Here, Kramp was ordered to serve two years for each Level 6 felony conviction executed in the DOC. Kramp does not challenge the length of his sentences but only argues that his placement in the DOC was inappropriate.

[15] The Indiana Supreme Court has previously held that “[t]he place that a sentence is to be served is an appropriate focus for application of our review and revise authority.” Biddinger v. State, 868 N.E.2d 407, 414 (Ind. 2007). However, it is “quite difficult for a defendant to prevail on a claim that the placement of his or her sentence is inappropriate.” Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Kramp must convince our court that the given placement is itself inappropriate. See Id. at 344.

[16] Kramp argues that his aggregate four-year sentence is inappropriate because the sentence imposed does not allow Kramp to seek alcohol abuse treatment. Kramp also claims that the court ignored his physical health when it ordered him to serve four years in the DOC.

[17] The trial court considered Kramp's need for alcohol abuse treatment and his physical health before the court ordered Kramp to serve executed time in the DOC. The court recommended Kramp's participation in the Recovery While Incarcerated program, and the court found Kramp's health or “health concerns” to be a mitigating circumstance. Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 11-12.

[18] Kramp has a significant criminal history, he has repeatedly operated a vehicle while intoxicated, and he has been given opportunities for alcohol abuse treatment but has not benefited from that treatment. He also endangered the lives of other motorists by operating his vehicle while intoxicated. Kramp has not presented any compelling evidence or argument portraying his character or his offenses in a positive light. And the trial court was free to disregard his self-serving statement that he wants to “change [his] ways ․” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 10.

Conclusion

[19] Kramp has not persuaded us that his placement in the DOC was inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character. Therefore, we affirm Kramp's four-year aggregate executed sentence.

[20] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   ACE or alcohol concentration equivalent is a measure of alcohol in grams per 100 milliliters of blood. In other words, at the time of the blood test, Kramp's ACE was 0.338 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood.

2.   It is unclear on the record before us what specific physical limitations Kramp suffers from, but the parties and the court acknowledged that Kramp has health concerns.

Mathias, Judge.

May, J., and Bradford, J., concur.