MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jan 08 2018, 10:11 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Darren Bedwell Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Michael Gene Worden
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Lamarr Rondell Coleman, January 8, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A05-1706-CR-1202
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Mark D. Stoner,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
The Honorable Jeffrey Marchal,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G06-1608-F3-30309
Altice, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1706-CR-1202 | January 8, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Lamarr Coleman appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for
Level 3 felony robbery. On appeal, Coleman argues that his sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] On the evening of August 2, 2016, Coleman and his friend, Paul Shipp, robbed
an Indianapolis liquor store. While Shipp beat the store clerk with his fists and
a wooden board, Coleman put money from the cash register and two bottles of
whiskey into a bag. Police arrived on the scene while the robbery was still in
progress, and Coleman and Shipp were both taken into custody.
[4] As a result of these events, the State charged Coleman with Level 3 felony
robbery. Following a jury trial, Coleman was found guilty as charged. The
trial court sentenced Coleman to the nine-year advisory sentence, with three
years executed on community corrections and the remaining six years
suspended to probation. Coleman now appeals.
Discussion & Decision
[5] Coleman argues that his sentence is inappropriately harsh. Article 7, section 4
of the Indiana Constitution grants our Supreme Court the power to review and
revise criminal sentences. See Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014),
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1706-CR-1202 | January 8, 2018 Page 2 of 5
cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 978 (2015). Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7, the
Supreme Court authorized this court to perform the same task. Cardwell v. State,
895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). Per App. R. 7(B), we may revise a sentence
“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.” Inman v. State, 4 N.E.3d 190, 203 (Ind. 2014) (quoting App. R.
7). “Sentencing review under Appellate Rule 7(B) is very deferential to the trial
court.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). “Such deference
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).
[6] The determination of whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate “turns on
our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the
damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given
case.” Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134, 1145 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Cardwell, 895
N.E.2d at 1224). Moreover, “[t]he principal role of such review is to attempt to
leaven the outliers.” Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. 2013). It is
not our goal in this endeavor to achieve the perceived “correct” sentence in
each case. Knapp, 9 N.E.3d at 1292. Accordingly, “the question under
Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1706-CR-1202 | January 8, 2018 Page 3 of 5
the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” King v. State,
894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (emphasis in original).
[7] In order to assess the appropriateness of a sentence, we first look to the
statutory range established for the classification of the relevant offense.
Coleman was convicted of a Level 3 felony, the sentencing range for which is
three to sixteen years, with an advisory sentence of nine years. Ind. Code § 35-
50-2-5. Because the advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has
chosen as appropriate for the crime committed, a defendant who has received
the advisory sentence bears a particularly heavy burden in persuading us that
his sentence is inappropriate. Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1089 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2011), trans. denied. In this case, Coleman not only received the advisory
sentence of nine years, but three years were ordered to be served on community
corrections and the remaining six years were suspended to probation.
[8] With respect to the nature of the offense, Coleman argues that he did not
personally inflict any of the injuries on the store clerk and that the crime was
not premeditated. With respect to his character, Coleman notes that he is
disabled and collects SSI and food stamps, that he has only a ninth grade
education and has difficulty reading and writing, and that he began drinking at
a young age and had been drinking on the day of the offense. It is unclear to us
how these observations reflect positively on his character. In any event, we
note that Coleman received a very lenient sentence, particularly in light of his
criminal history, which spans nearly thirty years and includes four felonies,
numerous misdemeanors, and two probation violations. Coleman’s nine-year
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1706-CR-1202 | January 8, 2018 Page 4 of 5
sentence, with three years executed on community corrections and six years
suspended to probation, is not inappropriate.1
[9] Judgment affirmed.
[10] May, J. and Vaidik, C.J., concur.
1
Although the State remarks that Coleman’s sentence is inappropriate in that it is too lenient, it does not seek
an upward revision of the sentence. See Akard v. State, 937 N.E.2d 811, 814 (Ind. 2010) (declining to increase
a sentence where the State did not request it).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1706-CR-1202 | January 8, 2018 Page 5 of 5