MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Feb 28 2018, 11:05 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
Rory Gallagher Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Katherine Cooper
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Charles Anthony Winters, February 28, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1708-CR-1842
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jose D. Salinas,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
The Honorable John Michael
Christ, Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G14-1701-CM-2529
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1842 | February 28, 2018 Page 1 of 6
[1] Charles Winters pled guilty to possession of marijuana as a Class A
misdemeanor and possession of paraphernalia as a Class C misdemeanor and
was sentenced to and aggregate sentence of 365 days, all suspended. On
appeal, Winters argues his sentence is inappropriate.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] On January 18, 2017, the State charged Winters with possession of marijuana
as a Class A misdemeanor and possession of paraphernalia as a Class C
misdemeanor. Winters’s case was transferred to the Marion County Drug
Treatment Court and Winters then entered into the Marion County Drug
Treatment Program, which required him to attend weekly hearings to monitor
the progress of his substance abuse treatment. During this time, Winters was in
the custody of the Marion County Community Corrections (MCCC) on home
detention.
[4] While participating in the drug treatment program, MCCC filed three notices of
violation alleging that Winters failed to comply with monetary obligations,
failed to report to MCCC as directed, and tampered with his monitoring device.
On July 19, 2017, Winters voluntarily withdrew from the drug treatment
program and pled guilty to both charges. Pursuant to a plea agreement,
sentencing was left to the trial court’s discretion. The court held a hearing that
same day. During the sentencing portion, Winters argued that he lived in
poverty, that he suffered from depression, anxiety, and had a learning disability,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1842 | February 28, 2018 Page 2 of 6
and that he had a substance abuse addiction. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the trial court sentenced Winters to aggregate term of 365 days with all
suspended to probation. As a condition of his probation, the trial court ordered
Winters to undergo a mental health evaluation and treatment, substance abuse
evaluation and treatment, and to submit to weekly drug testing. The court
further stated:
I’m going to try to reduce the obstacles that are in place. I do
think some supervision is important. ... You’ve done a lot here,
Mr. Winters. You’ve really come a long way. [E]ven though
you’re not successful with the completion of the program, you’re
different than you were when you started. ... Everybody has put
in a lot of work here, your attorneys have and you have. Okay.
And so you’re doing better than you were before. There’s some
things working against you. Hopefully you can overcome those.
I wish you well as well.
Transcript at 17-18. Winters now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as
necessary.
Discussion & Decision
[5] Winters argues that his sentence is inappropriate. Winters asks this court to
modify his period of probation so that it terminates upon successful completion
of his substance abuse and mental health treatment.
[6] 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), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 978 (2015). Pursuant to Ind.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1842 | February 28, 2018 Page 3 of 6
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).
[7] 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, 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).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1842 | February 28, 2018 Page 4 of 6
[8] We recognize that Winters’s offenses were unremarkable. Winters was found
in possession of a small amount of marijuana and he fully cooperated with the
arresting officer. With regard to his character, we note that Winters has a
modest criminal history, having accumulated two prior substance-related
misdemeanor offenses in 2012.1 Although there is nothing particularly
egregious about the nature of the offense and Winters’s character, we cannot
say that a one-year, fully-suspended sentence is inappropriate.
[9] Indeed, the trial court acknowledged that Winters had overcome some
obstacles, but observed that he continued to need supervision in order to be
successful in completing the court-ordered probation conditions of mental
health evaluation and treatment, substance abuse evaluation and treatment, and
weekly drug testing. The court noted that the process was long and that all
involved had worked hard to provide Winters with the resources he needs to
overcome his addiction. Winters himself acknowledged the struggles he faces
and will continue to face with regard to his addiction. That the probationary
period extends beyond his successful completion of mental health and
substance abuse treatment does not render his sentence inappropriate.
[10] Judgment affirmed.
1
The record indicates that Winters has two prior misdemeanor convictions, at least one of which is a drug
offense that was used to elevate his possession of marijuana offense to a Class A misdemeanor. Additionally,
Winters recently pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine in another cause and was sentenced
contemporaneously with this cause.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1842 | February 28, 2018 Page 5 of 6
[11] May, J. and Vaidik, C.J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1842 | February 28, 2018 Page 6 of 6