MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
May 21 2018, 6:57 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
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
Brandon E. Murphy Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Cannon Bruns & Murphy, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Muncie, Indiana
Jesse R. Drum
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Joshua A. Guntle, May 21, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
38A02-1707-CR-1604
v. Appeal from the Jay Circuit Court
The Honorable Brian D.
State of Indiana, Hutchison, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No.
38C01-1604-F5-21
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 38A02-1707-CR-1604 | May 21, 2018 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Joshua Guntle (“Guntle”) appeals the five-year sentence imposed following his
plea of guilty to Dealing in Methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony. He presents
the sole issue of whether his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On August 21, 2014, Guntle received a box of pseudoephedrine from a
confidential informant (“the C.I.”) and, in exchange therefor, provided the C.I.
with methamphetamine. On April 21, 2016, the State of Indiana charged
Guntle with Dealing in Methamphetamine. On June 1, 2017, after a jury was
convened, Guntle pled guilty as charged. On June 27, 2017, Guntle was
sentenced to five years imprisonment. He now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[3] Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-6(b) provides that a person convicted of a Level 5
felony faces a sentencing range of one to six years, with an advisory sentence of
three years. Guntle asks that we revise his sentence to four years, with two
years suspended.
[4] Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), this “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.” In performing our review, we assess “the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 38A02-1707-CR-1604 | May 21, 2018 Page 2 of 4
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.” Cardwell v.
State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). The principal role of such review is
to attempt to leaven the outliers. Id. at 1225.
[5] We give “considerable deference” to the trial court’s judgment. Stephenson v.
State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015) (citing Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222).
“Such deference will prevail” unless it is overcome by compelling evidence that
portrays in a positive light the nature of the offense and the defendant’s
character. Id.
[6] As for the nature of the offense, Guntle gave methamphetamine to the C.I. in
exchange for a box of pseudoephedrine. There is nothing particularly
remarkable about this transaction.
[7] Guntle has a history of criminal offenses both before and after his commission
of this offense in 2014. In 2012, he was convicted of theft, as a Class D felony.
He was convicted of three misdemeanor offenses in 2008 and 2013. Less than
one month after committing the instant offense, Guntle failed to return to
lawful detention. He was convicted of a Level 6 felony for that conduct. Later
in the same month, Guntle committed misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.
On October 17, 2014, two months after the instant offense, Guntle possessed a
narcotic drug and methamphetamine and resisted law enforcement. He pled
guilty to the charges against him. At the time of his sentencing here, Guntle
was facing additional charges that he dealt a narcotic drug and possessed a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 38A02-1707-CR-1604 | May 21, 2018 Page 3 of 4
syringe. Guntle has repeatedly violated the terms of probation and he was
arrested while out on bond. Guntle’s criminal history and continued
commission of drug-related offenses, together with his failure to benefit from
prior opportunities for rehabilitation, speak ill of his character.
[8] Having reviewed the matter, we conclude that the trial court did not impose an
inappropriate sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B), and the sentence does not
warrant appellate revision. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the sentence
imposed by the trial court.
[9] Affirmed.
Crone, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 38A02-1707-CR-1604 | May 21, 2018 Page 4 of 4