Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

FILED
Oct 14 2009, 9:28 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MICHAEL R. FISHER Marion County Public Defender Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana ZACHARY J. STOCK Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
ROBERT BRODERICK, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A04-0903-CR-173

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Israel N. Cruz, Master Commissioner Cause No. 49G16-0811-FD-248561

October 14, 2009

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

NAJAM, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Robert Broderick appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for Confinement, as a Class C felony, under a plea agreement. Broderick presents a single issue for review, namely, whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On October 30, 2008, Broderick and his girlfriend, Kristine Gamble, argued because Gamble refused to take Brodericks daughter trick-or-treating on Halloween. Broderick had been drinking heavily. He became angry, and Gamble went into another room. Broderick followed her, pulled Gamble by her shirt, and struck her in the head several times. Broderick dragged Gamble from the room, down the hallway, threw her down to the floor, and slammed her head to the floor multiple times. Broderick also kicked her in the sternum. A neighbor heard Gamble screaming for help and phoned the police. When Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officers arrived at Brodericks apartment, they heard banging and what they believed to be a woman screaming inside. When Gamble told Broderick that the police were knocking on the door, Broderick "began to smother her face with his hands, telling her to be quiet and that if she made any noise, he would kill her." Appellants App. at 15. As a result, Gamble was unable to breathe.

2

The officers demands to come to the door were unanswered, so the officers forcefully kicked the door open and entered the apartment. Upon entering, the officers "observed Kristine Gamble run from the hallway area screaming ,,please help me." Appellants App. at 13. They also saw blood on Gambles face and bruising on her eye and nose area. The officers placed Broderick under arrest and obtained medical treatment for Gamble. The State charged Broderick with confinement, as a Class D felony; strangulation, as a Class D felony; intimidation, as a Class D felony; domestic battery, as a Class A misdemeanor; battery, as a Class A misdemeanor; and, by a motion to amend the information, confinement, as a Class C felony. On January 23, 2009, the trial court accepted Brodericks guilty plea to confinement, as a Class C felony, under a written agreement, and the State requested the dismissal of the remaining charges. Under the agreement, sentencing was left to the courts discretion. The court accepted the plea and, after a hearing on February 27, sentenced Broderick to five years executed in the Department of Correction. Broderick now appeals. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Broderick contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) pr ovides that this court "may review a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial courts decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender." Although Rule 7(B) does not require us to be "very deferential" to a trial courts sentencing decision, we still must give due
3

consideration to that decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We also understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions. Id. "Additionally, a defendant bears the burden of persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate." Id. Broderick contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character. But "revision of a sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) requires the appellant to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate in light of both the nature of his offenses and his character." Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008); see Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). Broderick presents no argument whatsoever, let alone cogent

argument, regarding the inappropriateness of his sentence in light of the nature of his offense. Therefore, the argument is waived. Williams, 891 N.E.2d at 633; see App. R. 46(A)(8)(a). Affirmed. KIRSCH, J., and BARNES, J., concur.

4



Download Robert Broderick v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law