Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), Aug 07 2013, 5:32 am
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.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
DEBORAH MARKISOHN GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Appellate Division
Indianapolis, Indiana JODI KATHRYN STEIN
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
CODY STEELE, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A05-1301-CR-14
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable James B. Osborn, Judge
Cause No. 49F15-1210-FD-72129
August 7, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAILEY, Judge
Case Summary
Cody Steele (“Steele”) challenges his two-year sentence for Escape, as a Class D
felony,1 which was enhanced by one and one-half years due to his status as a habitual
offender. He presents the sole issue of whether his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On June 7, 2012, following a conviction for Child Molesting, Steele was placed on
home detention electronic monitoring. During the early morning hours of July 27, 2012,
Steele’s community corrections case manager received several alerts indicating that Steele
was out of his appropriate range. Steele did not have permission to leave his residence at that
time.
At approximately 4:30 a.m., Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer John Cohan
located Steele. Steele and his wife were in a vehicle traveling on South Leeds Avenue in
Indianapolis. When detained, Steele was found to be wearing a GPS ankle device. He was
arrested and, during a recorded jail conversation, admitted that he had left his residence
because he was drunk and high on crack cocaine.
A jury found Steele guilty of Escape; he admitted to being a habitual offender. The
trial court sentenced Steele to two years incarceration for his Escape conviction. That
sentence was enhanced by one and one-half years, to be served on work release, because of
his habitual offender status. Steele now appeals.
1
Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-4(b).
2
Discussion and Decision
A person who commits a Class D felony has a sentencing range of between six months
and three years with the advisory sentence being one and one-half years. I.C. § 35-50-2-7.
Steele was subject to a habitual offender enhancement of one and one-half years to four and
one-half years. See I.C. § 35-50-2-8. Steele received a two-year sentence for Escape and the
minimal one and one-half year enhancement.
In imposing this sentence, the trial court found two aggravators: Steele’s criminal
history (consisting of three felony and eight misdemeanor convictions) and his failure to “do
well” with lesser restrictions. (Tr. 130). The trial court found in mitigation that Steele was
remorseful, he had admitted his status as a habitual offender, his incarceration would cause
hardship to his child, and he had completed inmate programs.
Steele claims that his sentence is inappropriate and asks that we revise the sentence to
a three-year aggregate sentence. Steele received the minimal enhancement of one and one-
half years and thus essentially requests a revision of his two-year sentence to the minimal one
and one-half year sentence that may be imposed for a Class D felony.
The authority granted to this Court by Article 7, § 6 of the Indiana Constitution
permitting appellate review and revision of criminal sentences is implemented through
Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides: “The 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.” Under this rule, and as interpreted by case law, appellate courts may revise
3
sentences after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, if the sentence is found to be
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Cardwell
v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222-25 (Ind. 2008); Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852, 856-57
(Ind. 2003). The principal role of such review is to attempt to leaven the outliers. Cardwell,
895 N.E.2d at 1225.
Having reviewed the matter, we conclude that the trial court did not impose an
inappropriate sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B), and the sentence does not warrant
appellate revision. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the sentence imposed by the trial
court.
Affirmed.
MAY, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.
4