BAKER v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Derrick D. Baker appeals his convictions for burglary, as a Level 2 felony; false informing, as a Class B misdemeanor; and possession of paraphernalia, as a Class C misdemeanor, as well as his corresponding sentence. We affirm.

Issues

[2] Baker raises the following two issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted certain evidence.

2. Whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On April 11, 2023, Parvinder Singh was asleep at his house, which was located near the Marathon gas station where he worked. Singh heard a noise like “somebody knocking” on the door, which woke him up. Tr. Vol. 2 at 170. Singh left his room and looked toward the front door but did not see anyone. He then went to the back door, which was “always locked” and saw a man standing inside “holding [a] shovel[ ] in [his] hand.” Id. at 170, 171. Singh asked the man what he was doing, and the man responded by asking Singh the same question. Singh stated that it was his house and, at that point, the man sprayed Singh in the eyes with pepper spray. Singh then left his house, ran to the Marathon gas station, and had someone call 9-1-1.

[4] Officers with the Fort Wayne Police Department responded to the dispatch. An officer saw Singh pointing down a road toward a black male. Officers were able to apprehend the man, who identified himself as “Saffon Deion.” Id. at 143. However, officers were able to correctly identify the man as Baker. Officers searched Baker and found two Samsung phones, an iPhone, an Apple watch and charger, and $6 in his pockets. Those items were ultimately determined to belong to Singh and other people who resided in his home. Officers also found two pipes, which Baker indicated were “crack pipes for cocaine.” Id. at 210. When the officers returned to Singh's house, they were able to see that the back door's deadbolt lock was still “extended” and that there was damage to the door frame. Id. at 155.

[5] Detective Jethro Thompson interviewed Baker. Baker continued to falsely identify himself as Saffon Deion. Baker admitted to having been in Singh's home and said that he had entered the home to “smoke dope.” Id. at 238. Baker also stated to Detective Thompson that the individuals in the home “were homosexual and they started touching him,” which resulted in an altercation. Id. at 239. And Baker told Detective Thompson that he was chased with a shovel but “took phones from upstairs and downstairs” on his way out of the home. Id. at 240.

[6] The State charged Baker with burglary, as a Level 2 felony (Count 1); burglary, as a Level 3 felony (Count 2); robbery, as a Level 3 felony (Count 3); false informing, as a Class B misdemeanor (Count 4); and possession of paraphernalia, as a Class C misdemeanor (Count 5). The State also alleged that he was a habitual offender. Thereafter, the court held a bifurcated jury trial. During the first phase, Singh and the officers testified to the events of the day in question.

[7] Baker testified in his defense. In particular, he testified that he was “homeless” on that day and “didn't have nowhere to go” and that he was “looking for a place to get high.” Id. at 249. He also testified that the house looked “empty[.]” Tr. Vol. 3 at 3. Baker testified that he “decided to try to pry the door open with the shovel” but that he was “unable to get to the locking device because of the weather stripping.” Id. at 6. He further testified that he “pried the weather stripping off with the shovel” and then “r[a]n [his] body into the door” several times until the door “gave.” Id. at 6-7. He then testified that he believed Singh to be a “squatter,” that Singh had made “a threatening gesture” toward him, and that he “maced” Singh. Id. at 8. And he testified that he “went through the house to see if anyone else” was there, that he found cell phones and other items that he “picked” up, and that he “proceeded to go throughout the house.” Id. at 10. But Baker testified that he had not entered the house with any intention of stealing anything.

[8] Prior to the State's cross-examination of Baker, the State, outside the presence of the jury, argued that Baker had “opened the door” to the introduction of the fact that, prior to the offense, he had cut off his ankle monitor and escaped from a residential center where he was supposed to be serving a sentence. Id. at 15. The court agreed over Baker's objection. The State then elicited testimony from Baker that he cut off his ankle monitor the January prior to the offense and that he “left” the community corrections residential center. Id. at 20.

[9] At the conclusion of the first phase, the jury found Baker guilty as charged. Then, following the second phase, the jury found that he was a habitual offender. The trial court entered judgment of conviction only on Counts 1, 4, and 5 and adjudicated him a habitual offender. At a sentencing hearing, the court did not identify any mitigating factors, and it identified as aggravating Baker's criminal history, that prior attempts at rehabilitation had failed, and that he had been offered services since 1992. The court then sentenced Baker to concurrent terms of thirty years, enhanced by twenty years, on Count 1, one hundred and eighty days on Count 4, and sixty days on Count 5, for an aggregate sentence of fifty years. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Issue One: Admission of Evidence

[10] Baker first asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed the State to elicit testimony of a prior bad act. As our Supreme Court has stated:

Generally, a trial court's ruling on the admission of evidence is accorded a great deal of deference on appeal. Because the trial court is best able to weigh the evidence and assess witness credibility, we review its rulings on admissibility for abuse of discretion and only reverse if a ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party's substantial rights.

Hall v. State, 36 N.E.3d 459, 466 (Ind. 2015). Baker specifically contends that the court abused its discretion when it allowed the State to elicit testimony that he had previously cut off his ankle monitor and left his residential placement because he had not opened the door to that testimony.

[11] However, we need not decide whether the trial court erred when it admitted that evidence. “It is well settled that a claim of error in the admission or exclusion of evidence will not prevail on appeal unless a substantial right of the party is affected.” Caesar v. State, 139 N.E.3d 289, 292 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (quotation marks omitted), trans. denied. “That is, even if the trial court errs in admitting or excluding evidence, this Court will not reverse the defendant's conviction if the error is harmless.” Id. “An error in the admission of evidence is harmless where the ‘probable impact’ of the erroneously admitted evidence, ‘in light of all the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the substantial rights’ of the defendant.” Id. (quoting Ind. Appellate Rule 66(A)).

[12] Here, the challenged evidence was testimony that Baker had previously removed his ankle monitor and absconded from his community corrections residential center. But even if the court abused its discretion when it allowed that evidence, there was substantial evidence to demonstrate that Baker had committed the instant offenses. Indeed, Singh awoke to find Baker in his home, holding a shovel. Baker then sprayed Singh with pepper spray, which caused Singh to flee his home and call 9-1-1. When officers arrived, they found Baker, who repeatedly lied about his identity. They also found multiple phones, a watch and charger, and money on Baker's person, which items were all identified as having come from Singh's home. Further, and notably, Baker admitted that he had broken into Singh's home with a shovel, that he had sprayed Singh with pepper spray, that he had taken the items from Singh's home, that he had lied about his identity to police, and that he was in possession of pipes used to ingest cocaine.

[13] In light of all of the evidence before the court, we can say with confidence that the probable impact of Baker's prior bad act was sufficiently minor so as to not affect his substantial rights. Accordingly, we conclude that any error in the admission of that evidence was harmless. We therefore affirm Baker's convictions.

Issue Two: Appropriateness of Sentence

[14] Baker next asserts that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “[t]he Court 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.” This Court has held that “[t]he advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. And the Indiana Supreme Court has previously explained that:

The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to leaven the outliers ․ but not achieve a perceived “correct” result in each case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Defendant has the burden to persuade us that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind.), as amended (July 10, 2007), decision clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).

Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original).

[15] Indiana's flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court's judgment “should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate at the end of the day 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.” Id. at 1224. The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] 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).

[16] The sentencing range for a Level 2 felony is ten years to thirty years, with an advisory sentence of seventeen and one-half years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5. A person faces a term of not more than one hundred and eighty days for a Class B misdemeanor. I.C. § 35-50-3-3. In addition, a person faces a term of not more than sixty days for a Class C misdemeanor. I.C. § 35-50-3-4. And Baker faced an additional fixed term of eight years to twenty years for his habitual offender adjudication. I.C. § 35-50-2-8(i)(1). Here, the court sentenced Baker to concurrent terms of thirty years, enhanced by twenty years, for the Level 2 felony conviction, one hundred and eighty days for the Class B misdemeanor, and sixty days for the Class C misdemeanor, for an aggregate term of fifty years.

[17] On appeal, Baker contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses because he simply “broke into a home, sprayed a man with mace[,] and stole electronics and six dollars[.]” Appellant's Br. at 19. And, while he does not make a specific argument regarding his character, he appears to contend that a maximum sentence is inappropriate because he is not “one of the worst of the worse defendants.” Id. (emphasis removed).

[18] However, Baker has not met his burden on appeal to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate. Regarding the nature of the offenses, Baker broke into Singh's home while Singh was asleep. Baker used a shovel to pry open the door, which caused damage to the home; he sprayed Singh in the face with pepper spray; he stole various items from Singh's home; and he lied to police about his identity. In addition, he possessed pipes that he admitted were for the consumption of cocaine. Baker has not presented any evidence portraying the offenses in a positive light.

[19] As for his character, Baker has an extensive criminal history. He has three adjudications as a juvenile delinquent, fourteen prior misdemeanor convictions, and fifteen prior felony convictions. In addition, he has had his parole revoked twice, his probation revoked four times, and his placement on community corrections revoked once. Indeed, Baker was supposed to be serving a sentence on community corrections at the time he committed the instant offenses. That criminal history demonstrates an extreme lack of regard for our laws and the court's rules. And Baker continues to commit crimes despite the court's prior attempts at alternative sentences. In addition, Baker has been offered services since 1992 but continues to use illegal drugs and commit crimes, which reflects poorly on his character. Baker has not presented compelling evidence of substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character. Baker's sentence is not inappropriate.

Conclusion

[20] Any error in the court's admission of testimony related to Baker's prior bad acts was harmless. And Baker's sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. We therefore affirm his convictions and sentence.

[21] Affirmed.

Bailey, Judge.

Brown, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.