Harron Jamil Burnett, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After police officers found him sleeping behind the wheel of a car in the drive-through of a White Castle while heavily intoxicated and with a firearm holster on his waistband, Harron Burnett pled guilty to felony unlawful possession of a firearm and misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI). The plea agreement recommended an aggregate sentence of six years, with the first three years of Count I served at the discretion of the trial court in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC), work release, or home detention, and the remaining three years suspended to probation. The court sentenced Burnett to the recommended six years, with three years executed in the DOC followed by three years of supervised probation. Burnett appeals, arguing his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character. Finding that the sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On February 6, 2022, Burnett was arrested in a White Castle drive-through in Kokomo after he fell asleep in the driver's seat of his car. When the police officers initially approached Burnett's vehicle, his girlfriend was sitting in his lap. One officer instructed her to exit the vehicle, at which time he discovered she had a firearm. He removed the firearm and gave it to the other officer to be cleared. The officers confirmed that she had a valid lifetime concealed carry permit.

[3] While Burnett was still asleep, an officer checked his person for weapons and discovered an empty holster for a firearm on his waistband. In his attempt to secure Burnett and prevent him from grabbing any weapons that may have been around, the officer grabbed Burnett's hands. This maneuver woke Burnett up, and he was subsequently removed from the vehicle. There were no weapons discovered on Burnett's person.

[4] Burnett and his girlfriend were detained in handcuffs while the officer conducted a search of the front seats to verify there were no more weapons. During this search, the officer discovered what was later confirmed to be a Xanax pill. He then observed that both Burnett and his girlfriend had red, watery eyes and smelled strongly of alcohol. The officer informed the pair of their Miranda rights and then asked them about the pill. He also asked whether they would agree to take a Preliminary (or Portable) Breath Test (PBT), and both agreed.

[5] Before taking the PBT, Burnett attempted to reenter the car and, when the officer grabbed his arm to stop him, Burnett pulled away and then stepped towards the officer in an aggressive manner. He asked about Burnett's holster, and Burnett denied ever being in possession of a firearm. Burnett then took the PBT, which indicated that his breath alcohol concentration was 0.245%, more than three times the legal limit of 0.08%.¹

[6] The officer then fully searched the vehicle and discovered a bag of marijuana next to the driver's seat and a black magnetic box in the glove box, both of which were seized. After taking the pair to jail, the officer attempted to administer each of them a chemical intoxication test, which both refused. When they attempted to return Burnett to the back of the police car after these refusals, he resisted getting into the car and was tased so the officers could secure him in the back seat.

[7] Burnett was charged with Count I: Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by Serious Violent Felon,² a Level 4 felony;³ Count II: Possession of Marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor;⁴ Count III: Possession of a Controlled Substance, a Class A misdemeanor;⁵ and Count IV: Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated, a Class C misdemeanor.⁶ He later pled guilty to and was convicted of Count I: Unlawful Possession of a Firearm, a Level 5 felony;⁷ and Count II, OWI, a Class C Misdemeanor (Count IV as charged). The two remaining counts were dismissed and the State agreed it would not file new charges in a third, unrelated case.

[8] The plea agreement recommended that Burnett be sentenced to six years for Count I, with three years to be served at the discretion of the trial court—in the DOC, on work release, or on home detention—and the remaining three years suspended to supervised probation. As to Count IV, the agreement recommended that Burnett serve sixty days in jail, with credit for time served, with the remainder of the sentence suspended to supervised probation to run concurrently with Count I.

[9] At sentencing, Burnett testified about the substance abuse programming he completed, his sobriety and employment, his son's and his own health needs, and that he was the sole financial support for his family. He requested the court use its discretion to order the first three years of his sentence to be served on home detention.

[10] The court considered Burnett's guilty plea as a mitigating circumstance and his criminal history, particularly his “prior convictions related to weapons and harm to persons[,]” as aggravating circumstances. Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 106. The court sentenced Burnett to six years on Count I, with the first three years to be executed in the DOC and the remaining three years suspended to supervised probation. As to Count IV, the court sentenced Burnett consistent with the plea agreement's recommendation: sixty days in jail, with credit for time served, and the remainder suspended to supervised probation to run concurrently with Count I. He was granted four credit days on Count I and six credit days on Count IV. Burnett appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[11] Burnett argues his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character. He specifically contends that the portion of his sentence to be executed in the DOC is inappropriate.

[12] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) allows us to revise a sentence that we find to be “inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Cramer v. State, 240 N.E.3d 693, 698 (Ind. 2024). Our review under 7(B) “is deferential to the trial court's decision, and ‘we avoid merely substituting our judgment’ for that of the trial court.” Thomas v. State, 249 N.E.3d 1118, 1121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (quoting Nicholson v. State, 221 N.E.3d 680, 684 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied). Our primary goal is to “leaven the outliers.” Robinson v. State, 91 N.E.3d 574, 577 (Ind. 2018). We may consider any factors within the record, and Burnett bears the burden on appeal of persuading us that his sentence was inappropriate. Thomas, 249 N.E.3d at 1121. “Ultimately, we rely on our ‘collective judgment as to the balance’ of all the relevant considerations involved, which include ‘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.’ ” Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 122 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224, 1226 (Ind. 2008)).

[13] We also note that the two prongs of 7(B) review—the offense and the offender's character—are distinct considerations that we must balance to determine a sentence's appropriateness. Id. at 126. A revision may be in order “where only one of the prongs weighs heavily” in the defendant's favor. Id. (quoting Connor v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)). Nonetheless, “to 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.

[14] We begin with the nature of Burnett's offense. “Our analysis of the ‘nature of the offense’ requires us to look at the nature, extent, heinousness, and brutality of the offense.” Thomas, 249 N.E.3d at 1121 (quoting Pritcher v. State, 208 N.E.3d 656, 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023)). We also recognize that our starting point is the advisory sentence our Legislature has deemed appropriate for the crime. Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014). The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is between one and six years, with an advisory sentence of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Burnett to six years on Count I, with three years executed in the DOC and three years suspended. Burnett claims “[t]he inappropriate part of [his] sentence is the three (3) year executed portion[.]” Appellant's Brief at 10.

[15] We first note that while Burnett's aggregate sentence deviates from the advisory three years, the portion he challenges on appeal—the executed portion—was capped at the advisory length by the plea agreement. We also note that the nature of his offense—a serious violent felon in possession of a firearm—supports a Level 4 felony, which Burnett was originally charged with and which carries a sentencing range between two and twelve years and an advisory sentence of six years. I.C. § 35-50-2-5.5. Burnett admitted to being a serious violent felon and “intentionally or knowingly possess[ing] a firearm.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 6; see I.C. § 35-47-4-9(b)(3). However, as a result of his plea agreement, the Level 4 felony was reduced to a Level 5 felony offense, the two drug charges were dismissed, and the State agreed not to pursue charges in another case. Thus, Burnett originally faced more time than the aggregate six-year sentence stipulated to in the agreement.

[16] Nonetheless, when a sentence deviates from the advisory sentence, we look at “whether there is anything more or less egregious about the offense committed by the defendant that makes it different from the ‘typical’ offense” contemplated by the Legislature in setting the advisory sentence. Holloway v. State, 950 N.E.2d 803, 806-07 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Here, while Burnett had only a firearm holster on his person, a firearm was in the vehicle within his reach; he was heavily intoxicated at over three times the legal limit while operating a vehicle; and he became aggressive with officers and had to be tased during the booking process. Burnett not only unlawfully possessed a firearm—which in and of itself poses a threat to the public—but he exacerbated that danger by being heavily intoxicated and aggressive. Given the circumstances and the risk Burnett created with his actions, we conclude his sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense.

[17] Turning now to Burnett's character, we find his character is more than sufficient to support his sentence. “Our analysis of the character of the offender involves a broad consideration of a defendant's qualities, including the defendant's age, criminal history, background, past rehabilitative efforts, and remorse.” Thomas, 249 N.E.3d at 1122 (quoting Pritcher, 208 N.E.3d at 668). Overall, an offender's character is shown by his “life and conduct.” Adams v. State, 120 N.E.3d 1058, 1065 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Croy v. State, 953 N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), reh'g denied).

[18] As the trial court recognized, Burnett, now 38 years old, has a lengthy and significant criminal history. His criminal activity began in 2001 when he was a teenager and continued into his adulthood. As an adult, he has been convicted of numerous felony offenses, including the unlawful carrying of a handgun without a license, criminal recklessness with a deadly weapon resulting in serious bodily injury to another, resisting law enforcement, criminal confinement while armed, and battery twice, once with a deadly weapon. He has also been convicted of multiple misdemeanors, including battery, OWI, and public intoxication. Although Burnett presented evidence that he completed a substance use recovery program, had remained sober since the offense, and was supporting his family, the pattern revealed by his criminal history cannot be ignored. Not only does it demonstrate a persistent use of firearms—and in a manner that caused harm to others more than once—but also an overall disregard for the rule of law. As such, we conclude that Burnett's sentence is not inappropriate in light of his character.

Conclusion

[19] Because Burnett has failed to demonstrate his sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character, we affirm.

[20] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See Ind. Code § 9-30-5-1(a) (criminalizing operation of a vehicle “with an alcohol concentration” at or above “eight-hundredths (0.08) gram of alcohol”).

2.   In 2016, Burnett was convicted of criminal confinement, which is a “serious violent felony” under Indiana Code section 35-47-4-5(a),(b)(10) (defining a “serious violent felon” as someone “who has been convicted of committing a serious violent felony” and listing such felonies). See Transcript Vol. 2 at 5-6.

3.   I.C. § 35-47-4-5(c).

4.   I.C. § 35-48-4-11(b)(1).

5.   I.C. § 35-48-4-7(a).

6.   I.C. § 9-30-5-2(a).

7.   I.C. § 35-47-4-9.

DeBoer, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.