MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Sep 14 2016, 9:30 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Donald E.C. Leicht Gregory F. Zoeller
Kokomo, Indiana Attorney General
Lyubov Gore
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Mitchell Maddox, September 14, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
34A02-1605-CR-1124
v. Appeal from the Howard Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Lynn Murray,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
34C01-1409-F5-196
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1605-CR-1124 | September 14, 2016 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
Mitchell Maddox pled guilty to Level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a
license, and in exchange the State dismissed numerous felony and
misdemeanor charges. The trial court sentenced him to five years, with one
year suspended to probation. Maddox now appeals, arguing that his sentence is
inappropriate. Because Maddox has failed to persuade us that his sentence is
inappropriate, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[1] In September 2014—two months after being released from the Indiana
Department of Correction—twenty-two-year-old Maddox was charged with
Level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a license (based on a previous felony
conviction within fifteen years), Level 5 felony obliterating identifying marks on
a handgun, Level 6 felony auto theft, Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic
drug, and Level 6 felony possession of a syringe in Cause No. 34C01-1409-F5-
196 (“F5-196”).
[2] Less than a month later, in October 2014, Maddox was charged with Class A
misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor leaving the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1605-CR-1124 | September 14, 2016 Page 2 of 6
scene of an accident, and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication in Cause
No. 34C01-1410-CM-215 (“CM-215”).1
[3] Then, in May 2015, Maddox was charged with Class A misdemeanor
possession of marijuana in Cause No. 34C01-1505-CM-59 (“CM-59”). The
following month, Maddox was charged with Level 2 felony dealing in a
narcotic drug in a fourth case.2
[4] In January 2016, Maddox and the State entered into a plea agreement.
Specifically, Maddox agreed to plead guilty in F5-196 to Level 5 felony carrying
a handgun without a license. Appellant’s App. p. 64. In exchange, the State
agreed to dismiss the other charges in that cause number as well as the
misdemeanor charges in CM-215 and CM-59. Tr. p. 4-5; Appellant’s App. p.
66. The plea agreement did not address the Level 2 felony dealing charge. Tr.
p. 5. In addition, the parties agreed that “the sentence [would] not exceed five
(5) years.” Appellant’s App. p. 64. The trial court accepted the plea agreement,
entered judgment of conviction for the Level 5 felony, dismissed the remaining
charges in F5-196 and cause numbers CM-215 and CM-59, and set the case for
sentencing.
1
The State cites page 126 of the Appellant’s Appendix (which is part of Maddox’s PSI) for this information,
but this page is missing from the appendix on file with this Court. Because Maddox does not dispute this
information, see Tr. p. 20 (defense counsel noting only one correction to be made to PSI), we take it to be
true.
2
The State also cites page 126 for both of these cases.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1605-CR-1124 | September 14, 2016 Page 3 of 6
[5] Following the sentencing hearing, the trial court identified Maddox’s guilty plea
as a mitigator but gave it “basically no weight” because of the “considerable
benefits” he received in the number of dismissed charges. Tr. p. 24. The trial
court found “significant” aggravators: (1) Maddox had a criminal history
despite being “a fairly young man”; (2) he had multiple probation violations,
including refusing to complete alcohol and drug treatment; and (3) he
committed several crimes after his arrest in this case. Id. at 24-26. The trial
court sentenced Maddox to five years, with one year suspended to supervised
probation.
[6] Maddox now appeals his sentence.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Maddox contends that his five-year sentence with one year suspended to
supervised probation is inappropriate and should be revised to “five (5) years,
with one (1) or two (2) years incarceration and the remainder suspended to
supervised probation.” Appellant’s Br. p. 8.
[8] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we may revise a sentence authorized
by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find that the
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character
of the offender. Because sentencing is a highly case-sensitive endeavor, it is
generally a decision that is best made at the trial-court level. Gibson v. State, 43
N.E.3d 231, 241 (Ind. 2015) (citing Saylor v. State, 808 N.E.2d 646, 649 (Ind.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1605-CR-1124 | September 14, 2016 Page 4 of 6
2004)). When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence under Rule 7(B), we
may consider all aspects of the penal consequences imposed by the trial court in
sentencing the defendant, including whether a portion of the sentence was
suspended. Weedman v. State, 21 N.E.3d 873, 894 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans.
denied. It is the defendant’s burden on appeal to persuade us that his sentence is
inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
[9] A person who commits a Level 5 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of
between one and six years, with the advisory sentence being three years. Ind.
Code § 35-50-2-6(b). Here, Maddox’s plea agreement provided that his
sentence would not exceed five years, and the trial court sentenced him to five
years with one year suspended to probation.
[10] Maddox claims that there is nothing violent about the nature of the offense
because “[c]arrying a handgun is not a violent act.” Appellant’s Br. p. 7. Even
if that is true in this case, it is Maddox’s character that convinces us that his
five-year sentence with one year suspended is appropriate. As even Maddox
concedes, “he is willing to knowingly commit a crime” and “has trouble
following rules of probation.” Id. Indeed, after his arrest for carrying a
handgun without a license (which occurred a mere two months after his release
from the DOC), Maddox was arrested for five offenses under three separate
cause numbers—two of which were dismissed by the plea agreement in this
case. In addition, Maddox has failed to take advantage of the opportunities
that the courts have given him before by violating his probation multiple times.
Maddox has failed to persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1605-CR-1124 | September 14, 2016 Page 5 of 6
[11] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Najam, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1605-CR-1124 | September 14, 2016 Page 6 of 6