Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before FILED
any court except for the purpose of Apr 23 2012, 9:11 am
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
THOMAS G. GODFREY GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
MICHELLE BUMGARNER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
RODNEY D. BLEDSOE, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 48A02-1105-CR-442
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MADISON SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Thomas L. Clem, Judge
Cause No. 48D05-1002-FD-52
April 23, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY, Judge
Rodney D. Bledsoe appeals as inappropriate the two years of executed time the court
ordered him to serve for Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated,1 Class C
infraction driving left of center,2 Class D felony possession of cocaine,3 and Class A
misdemeanor possession of marijuana.4 We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Around 2:00 a.m. on February 14, 2010, police in Madison County, Indiana, noticed
the vehicle Bledsoe was driving appeared to be out of control and nearly went off the
roadway. Police stopped Bledsoe for traveling left of center and failing to signal a turn.
They noticed Bledsoe smelled of alcohol and burnt marijuana, and they saw an open bottle of
vodka on the floorboard of the back seat. Officers patted down Bledsoe and found a bag of
cocaine and marijuana.
The State charged Bledsoe with Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while
intoxicated in a manner that endangers a person,5 Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle
while intoxicated, Class C infraction driving left of center, Class D felony possession of
cocaine, and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. At a dispositional hearing on
December 6, Bledsoe pled guilty to operating while intoxicated, driving left of center,
possession of cocaine, and possession of marijuana.
Bledsoe’s plea agreement provided his sentence was open, but it capped the executed
1
Ind. Code § 9-30-5-1(c).
2
Ind. Code § 9-21-8-2 (requiring use of right half of roadway); Ind. Code § 9-21-8-49 (defining violation of
Ind. Code § 9-21-8-2 as a class C infraction).
3
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6(a).
4
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11(1).
5
Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2(b).
2
time at twenty-four months. Bledsoe requested the court order his sentence served at a local
facility where he could receive health care from his physician. At the sentencing hearing on
May 2, 2011, the court noted Bledsoe had an “extensive [criminal] history” which included
juvenile theft crimes and escalating drug crimes during adulthood, and sentencing to local
programs, such as probation, had failed in the past. (Tr. at 22.) The court found aggravating
circumstances in the manner in which Bledsoe accumulated his criminal history, beginning
with numerous juvenile crimes that would have amounted to theft if he committed them as an
adult, then during adulthood maturing into consistently escalating felonies involving drugs.
That the present crime was a repeat of past criminal episodes was also an aggravating factor.
The court found only one mitigator -- that Bledsoe “own[ed] up to [his crime].” (Id. at 24.)
The court imposed a sentence of two years executed at the Department of Correction and one
year of probation.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
An appellate 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.” Ind. Appellate Rule
7(B). In our review, “we must and should exercise deference to a trial court’s sentencing
decision . . . .” Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d 858, 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “The defendant
has the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate.” King v. State, 894 N.E.2d
265, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Bledsoe acknowledges the nature of his offenses warrants punishment, but he claims
3
the Department of Correction is not an appropriate location to execute his sentence in light of
his health issues that require monitoring by his physician. Bledsoe has not demonstrated his
sentence is inappropriate in light of his character and offense.
The “location where a sentence is to be served is an appropriate focus for application
of our review and revise authority.” Id. However, “it will be quite difficult for a defendant
to prevail on a claim that the placement of his sentence is inappropriate[,] because the
question under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more appropriate;
rather the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Id. at 267-68
(emphasis in original). Accordingly, a defendant must convince us that the given placement
is itself inappropriate. Id. at 268.
To support his contention his character warrants a change in placement, Bledsoe
presented evidence of his health issues, which include HIV and bipolar disorder. However,
when we consider the character of the offender, “one relevant fact is the defendant’s criminal
history.” Holloway v. State, 950 N.E.2d 803, 807 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). The significance of a
criminal history depends on the “gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to
the current offense.” Id. Bledsoe has a history of escalating offenses related to drug abuse
and, as the trial court noted, “this is a repeat of those very criminal episodes[.]” (Tr. at 24.)
The trial court also noted Bledsoe had been sentenced to local programs in the past, but
ultimately ended up in the Department of Correction “as a result of [Bledsoe’s] inability to
comply with local sentencing.” (Id. at 23-24.) “As a practical matter, trial courts know the
feasibility of alternative placements in particular counties or communities.” Fonner v. State,
4
876 N.E. 2d 340, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). In light of the evidence of Bledsoe’s prior
failures in local sentencing, we will not disturb the decision to place Bledsoe in the
Department of Correction.
Because we are not convinced Bledsoe’s sentence is inappropriate, we affirm.
Affirmed.
CRONE, J., and BROWN, J., concur.
5