Basden Breakfield v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Sep 13 2016, 8:03 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK

Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Deborah Markisohn Gregory F. Zoeller Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana

Lyubov Gore Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Basden Breakfield, September 13, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1602-CR-268 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior

Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Anne Flannelly, Appellee-Plaintiff Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No. 49G04-1507-F5-23224

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1602-CR-268 | September 13, 2016 Page 1 of 4 [1] Basden Breakfield appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court after he was convicted of Level 5 felony battery against a public safety official. Breakfield argues that the trial court erred by declining to find his mental health to be a mitigating factor. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts [2] In June 2015, Breakfield was incarcerated at the Marion County Jail, awaiting sentencing in a case in which he had been convicted of eight felonies and two misdemeanors. On June 20, 2015, Breakfield was taken out of his cell to be processed and have his booking photo taken for a new offense he had been charged with. Marion County Deputy Jason Price accompanied Breakfield to the processing area. Breakfield was reluctant, slow to follow orders, and uncooperative.

[3] Deputy Price ordered Breakfield to walk over to have his photo taken. The deputy ordered Breakfield to stand in a particular place and look at the camera. Breakfield slowly walked over to the correct area but refused to look at the camera, saying that he did not feel like doing that. Breakfield slowly walked back over to the deputies, refusing to comply with Deputy Price’s order to return for the photo. Breakfield suddenly lunged at Deputy Price with a closed fist, striking the deputy’s face, neck, and shoulder. Deputy Price sustained pain and redness as a result of the punches.

[4] On July 2, 2015, the State charged Breakfield with Level 5 felony battery against a public safety official. After a bench trial held on December 10, 2015, Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1602-CR-268 | September 13, 2016 Page 2 of 4 the trial court found Breakfield guilty as charged. A joint sentencing hearing was held on January 15, 2016.1 At that hearing, the trial court identified Breakfield’s criminal history and the fact that he was in custody at the time he committed the instant crime as aggravators. The trial court did not find any mitigating circumstances, found that the “aggravating factors outweigh[ed] the mitigating factors,” and sentenced Breakfield to four years imprisonment, to be served consecutive to the sentences in the other causes. Tr. p. 53-54. Breakfield now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Breakfield’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to find his mental health to be a mitigating factor. The trial court is afforded broad leeway in determining aggravating and mitigating factors. Rogers v. State, 878 N.E.2d 269, 272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Furthermore, the trial court is not obligated to accept the defendant’s argument as to what constitutes a mitigating factor. Cotto v. State, 829 N.E.2d 520, 525 (Ind. 2005). When a defendant alleges that the trial court failed to identify a mitigating circumstances, he is required to establish that the mitigator is both significant and clearly supported by the record. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 493 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).

[6] In this case, Breakfield presented no evidence to show that he was mentally ill at the time he committed this offense. Specifically, he offered no documentation of diagnosis or treatment, testimony from his doctors, or records of any medication he had been prescribed. In the presentence investigation (PSI) report, Breakfield stated that he had no suicidal thoughts or thoughts of harming himself or others, did not experience hallucinations or delusions, and did not have a family history of mental illness. Breakfield did present evidence that at some point following this offense, he was prescribed mental health medication.2 But nothing in the record clearly establishes Breakfield’s contention that he was mentally ill at the time he committed this offense. Under these circumstances, we find that the trial court did not err by declining to find Breakfield’s mental health as a mitigating factor.

[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Najam, J., concur.