MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 19 2018, 9:28 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Brian A. Karle Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Ball Eggleston, PC Attorney General of Indiana
Lafayette, Indiana
Matthew B. Mackenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Bryan Lee Jordan, April 19, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-89
v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Steven P. Meyer,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
79D02-1703-F5-34
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-89 | April 19, 2018 Page 1 of 4
Statement of the Case
[1] Bryan Lee Jordan appeals his sentence following his convictions for possession
of methamphetamine, as a Level 6 felony, and possession of a narcotic drug, as
a Level 6 felony. Jordan presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether
his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his
character. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On July 14, 2016, a Lafayette Police Department officer conducted a traffic stop
after he saw Jordan, whose driver’s license was then suspended, driving a car.
When the officer smelled marijuana coming from Jordan’s car, two officers
searched the car and found methamphetamine, a pill containing hydrocodone,
marijuana, and a handgun. The State charged Jordan with possession of
methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony; possession of a narcotic drug, as a
Level 5 felony; two counts of carrying a handgun without a license, one as a
Level 5 felony and one as a Class A misdemeanor; and two other
misdemeanors.
[3] On August 18, 2017, Jordan pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine,
as a Level 6 felony, and possession of a narcotic, as a Level 6 felony. In
exchange for that guilty plea, the State dismissed the remaining charges. The
trial court entered judgment of conviction accordingly and sentenced Jordan to
concurrent sentences of two years in the Department of Correction. This
appeal ensued.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-89 | April 19, 2018 Page 2 of 4
Discussion and Decision
[4] Jordan contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offenses and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “[t]he
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.” The
Indiana Supreme Court has recently explained that:
The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to
leaven the outliers . . . but not achieve a perceived “correct”
result in each case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind.
2008). Defendant has the burden to persuade us that the
sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Anglemyer v.
State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind.), as amended (July 10, 2007),
decision clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).
Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original).
[5] Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate
sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court’s judgment “should
receive considerable deference.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. Whether we
regard a sentence as inappropriate at the end of the day 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.” Id. at 1224.
The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather
whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265,
268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] unless
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-89 | April 19, 2018 Page 3 of 4
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] Jordan maintains that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offenses. In particular, he asserts that the offenses “are not more egregious than
the ‘typical’ offense.” Appellant’s Br. at 8. Be that as it may, we consider both
the nature of the offenses and Jordan’s character in our review, see Williams v.
State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), and Jordan’s bad character
persuades us that his sentence is not inappropriate.
[7] At the time of the sentencing hearing, Jordan’s criminal history included
convictions for six felonies and twenty misdemeanors, and he was serving a
twenty-six-year sentence, which included a habitual offender enhancement, for
other convictions. Jordan has been found to have violated the terms of his
probation five times, and he was out on bond for another offense at the time of
the instant offenses. Further, Jordan admits to a history of substance abuse,
which he has been unable to overcome despite court-ordered participation in
multiple substance abuse programs. We cannot say that Jordan’s sentence is
inappropriate in light of his character.
[8] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-89 | April 19, 2018 Page 4 of 4
Bryan Lee Jordan v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion