MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Jun 11 2018, 6:22 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any 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
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn, Indiana
Monika Prekopa Talbot
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jason E. Walls, June 11, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-264
v. Appeal from the
Henry Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff. Kit C. Dean Crane, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
33C02-1709-F6-431
Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-264 | June 11, 2018 Page 1 of 5
[1] Jason E. Walls (“Walls”) pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine1 as
a Level 6 felony and was sentenced to two and a half years with six months
suspended to probation. Walls appeals his sentence and raises the following
issue for our review: whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature
of the offense and the character of the offender.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] While investigating the theft of several credit cards from a home, police learned
that one of the credit cards had been used to rent a hotel room. Police officers
went to the hotel and knocked on the door of the rented room. There, they
encountered Walls and his wife. The officers observed syringes in plain view
and arrested Walls. While conducting a search of Walls’s person, the officers
found a small baggie of methamphetamine in his wallet and a syringe
containing liquid methamphetamine.
[4] On September 12, 2017, the State charged Walls with Level 6 felony possession
of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe, Level 6
felony maintaining a common nuisance, and Class A misdemeanor theft. On
November 28, 2017, pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, Walls pleaded
guilty to Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine in exchange for the
1
See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-264 | June 11, 2018 Page 2 of 5
dismissal of the remaining charges in this case and in one other case.
Sentencing was left to the discretion of the trial court. On January 4, 2018, the
trial court sentenced Walls to two and a half years with six months suspended
to probation. Walls now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Pursuant to 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.” Our Supreme Court has explained that the
principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, not
to achieve a perceived correct result in each case. Brown v. State, 52 N.E.3d 945,
954 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (citing Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind.
2008)), trans. denied. We independently examine the nature of a defendant’s
offenses and his character under Appellate Rule 7(B) with substantial deference
to the trial court’s sentence. Satterfield v. State, 33 N.E.3d 344, 355 (Ind. 2015).
“In conducting our review, we do not look to see whether the defendant’s
sentence is appropriate or if another sentence might be more appropriate;
rather, the test is whether the sentence is ‘inappropriate.’” Barker v. State, 994
N.E.2d 306, 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. The defendant bears the
burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Brown, 52 N.E.3d at
954.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-264 | June 11, 2018 Page 3 of 5
[6] Walls argues that his two and a half-year sentence is inappropriate in light of
the nature of the offense and his character. Specifically, he contends that the
nature of his offense is minor because he was only in possession of a small
quantity of methamphetamine that was presumably for personal use. Walls
also asserts that based on his character his sentence should be found
inappropriate because he accepted responsibility by pleading guilty, he had led
a law-abiding life for many years before his current crime, and he had minor
children who had been removed from his care due to this crime.
[7] “As to the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting point the
legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.”
Kunberger v. State, 46 N.E.3d 966, 973 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). In the present case,
Walls was convicted of Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine. The
advisory sentence for a Level 6 felony is one year, with a range of between six
months and two and a half years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). The trial court
sentenced Walls to two and a half years with six months suspended to
probation.
[8] The nature of the offense is found in the details and circumstances of the
commission of the offense and the defendant’s participation. Croy v. State, 953
N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Here, Walls knowingly or intentionally
possessed methamphetamine. Although the amount of the drug he possessed
was evidently less than five grams since he was charged with a Level 6 felony,
this is already taken into consideration by the statute under which Walls was
charged. If he had possessed a larger amount, he would have been charged
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-264 | June 11, 2018 Page 4 of 5
accordingly with a higher offense. Additionally, the fact that the
methamphetamine was only for personal use was already considered in
charging Walls since he was only charged with possession and not dealing
methamphetamine.
[9] “The character of the offender is found in what we learn of the offender’s life
and conduct.” Croy, 953 N.E.2d at 664. As to Walls’s character, he has a
lengthy criminal history, which consists of convictions for possession of
marijuana, driving while suspended, operating a vehicle while intoxicated,
possession of a controlled substance, theft, public intoxication, forgery, failure
to return to lawful detention, possession of stolen property, burglary, and
operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator. Additionally, Walls was out
on bond when he committed the present offense. This lengthy criminal history
and the commission of additional crimes while out on bond demonstrate a lack
of respect for the law. Further, although Walls did plead guilty and take
responsibility for his actions, he already received a significant benefit because,
in exchange for his guilty plea, the State dismissed three other counts, which
included two other Level 6 felonies and one Class A misdemeanor. Based on
the nature of the offense and the character of the offender, we conclude that
Walls’s sentence is not inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B).
[10] Affirmed.
[11] Baker, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-264 | June 11, 2018 Page 5 of 5