Buffington v. State

1

Nathaniel Q. Buffington, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff

No. 23A-CR-1974

Court of Appeals of Indiana

January 23, 2024

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.

Appeal from the Dearborn Superior Court The Honorable Sally A McLaughlin, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 15D02-2301-F6-37

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT R. Patrick Magrath Madison, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Catherine E. Brizzi Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

Bradford and Felix Judges concur.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Altice, Chief Judge.

Case Summary

[¶1] Nathaniel Q. Buffington pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement, and the trial court sentenced Buffington to two and one-half years. Buffington appeals, asserting that his sentence, the maximum, is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

[¶2] We affirm.

Facts &Procedural History

[¶3] While on patrol around 11:00 p.m. on January 19, 2023, Lawrenceburg Police Department Officer Luke Gentry observed a motorcycle, driven by Buffington and with a passenger on the back, turn left on a red light. A license plate inquiry revealed that the motorcycle was registered to Buffington and that the plate had been expired for nearly five years. Officer Gentry activated his emergency lights to initiate a traffic stop, and, after about a minute, Buffington stopped briefly at a stop sign before accelerating away. Officer Gentry pursued Buffington and notified dispatch. While fleeing from officers, Buffington ran a red light and numerous stop signs, entered lanes of oncoming traffic, swerved around officers' vehicles, and exceeded posted speed limits. Officer Gentry continued the pursuit onto Interstate 275 but concluded it when Buffington took an exit in Ohio. Dispatch advised Officer Gentry that there was an active warrant out of Ohio for Buffington's arrest with a caution that he could be armed and dangerous.

[¶4] Two days later and while on patrol in Lawrenceburg, Officer Gentry observed Buffington standing on a sidewalk. Officer Gentry exited his vehicle and arrested Buffington, who had a marijuana cigarette on his person.

[¶5] On January 23, 2023, the State charged Buffington with Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and Class B misdemeanor reckless driving. In May 2023, the parties appeared for a bench trial but advised that they had reached an agreement. Buffington thereafter pleaded guilty in open court to Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement, with the State dismissing the remaining charges and sentencing left to the trial court's discretion.

[¶6] At the June 2023 sentencing hearing, Buffington, age forty-eight, testified to having steady work as a self-employed union painter. He stated that, if released, he had plans to live with his mother, who was eighty years old and suffered with certain medical issues that he intended to assist her with. Buffington testified to having had aortic surgery in recent years, for which he was still receiving treatment, and that some years prior he was involved in an accident resulting in broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. He acknowledged having a criminal history, including "plenty of DUIs," but stated, "I would like to say I'm really not a criminal. I haven't done anything criminally since I was a teenager." Transcript at 13. Buffington testified to having requested participation in a substance treatment program while incarcerated and that he had mental health issues for which he needed treatment not available to him in jail.

[¶7] As to the night in question, Buffington stated that he initially made the left turn on red because the traffic light's sensor appeared to be malfunctioning, claiming that he waited for around five minutes in "raining ice" before proceeding to make the turn. Id. at 18, 21. According to Buffington, when he pulled over for the traffic stop, Officer Gentry "pulled a gun" on him, after which he fled the scene. Id. at 15, 23. Buffington stated that he was scared of going to jail on an active warrant and scared of "getting shot" so he was "heading to Cincinnati." Id. at 23, 25. Buffington testified that he made "a horrible decision" that day and regretted his actions. Id. at 17. He apologized to, among others, the officers involved.

[¶8] Officer Gentry testified that, when attempting to make the initial traffic stop of Buffington, at no point did he exit his patrol car or have his gun out. He described that at least eight Lawrenceburg officers, and several others from neighboring units, participated in the pursuit. Officer Gentry acknowledged that another officer may have drawn a firearm at some point during the pursuit.

[¶9] The trial court recognized as mitigating that Buffington pleaded guilty, showed remorse, has medical conditions, has available employment, and has an aging mother who could use his help. The court considered Buffington's criminal history, including that he had an active arrest warrant, as an aggravating factor. The court also found as aggravating that the chase occurred at high rates of speed on a motorcycle with a passenger on the back during dangerous and icy conditions, as Buffington fled from Indiana toward Ohio. The trial court determined that the aggravating factors "far outweigh[ed]" the mitigating factors and sentenced Buffington to 910 days (two and one-half years) with no days suspended. Id. at 38.

[¶10] Buffington now appeals. Additional information will be provided below as needed.

Discussion &Decision

[¶11] Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B), we may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Our principal role in App. R. 7(B) review is to leaven the outliers rather than necessarily achieve what is perceived as the correct result in each case. Turkette v. State, 151 N.E.3d 782, 786 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020) (citing Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008)), trans. denied. App R. 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). The defendant has the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

[¶12] Deference to the trial court should prevail 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). When assessing the nature of the offense and character of the offender, we may consider "any factors appearing in the record." Turkette, 151 N.E.3d at 786.

Ultimately, whether a sentence should be deemed inappropriate turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case. Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224.

[¶13] In determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, the advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Brown v. State, 160 N.E.3d 205, 220 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020). The sentencing range for Buffington's Level 6 felony is between six months and two and one-half years, with an advisory sentence of one year. Ind. Code § 3550-2-7. Buffington asks us to revise his maximum two-and-a-half-year sentence.

[¶14] When reviewing the nature of the offense, we look to the details and circumstances of the offense and the defendant's participation therein. Madden v State, 162 N.E.3d 549, 564 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021). Buffington acknowledges that he fled from law enforcement and disregarded multiple stop signs, a traffic light, and the speed limit but argues that he did not intend to harm anyone "nor did he cause anyone harm." Appellant's Brief at 9. We are unmoved by this argument. Buffington led officers on a high-speed chase through icy streets and toward the state...