MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing Jul 31 2018, 9:54 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Donald C. Swanson, Jr. Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Henry A. Flores, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ross M. Jordan, July 31, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-903
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Frances C. Gull,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
02D04-1706-F6-634
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-903 | July 31, 2018 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] After pleading guilty to Level 6 felony theft, Ross M. Jordan was sentenced to a
one-year term, all of which was to be served in the Department of Correction
(“DOC”). Jordan challenges the appropriateness of his placement in the DOC.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Between July and September of 2016, Jordan stole jewelry, electronics, and
lawn equipment from his mother. He then pawned the stolen items at various
pawn shops in exchange for $880. On June 8, 2017, the State charged Jordan
with Level 6 felony theft. Jordan pled guilty and was placed in the Allen
County Drug Court Diversion Program (“the program”). On February 21,
2018, Jordan’s placement in the program was revoked after he admitted to
committing numerous violations of the program’s rules. The trial court
subsequently sentenced him to a one-year term, all of which was to be served in
the DOC.
Discussion and Decision
[3] Jordan contends that the trial court’s order that he serve his one-year sentence
in the DOC is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “The
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.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-903 | July 31, 2018 Page 2 of 4
The location where a sentence is to be served is an appropriate
focus for application of our review and revise authority.
Nonetheless, we note that it will be quite difficult for a defendant
to prevail on a claim that the placement of his or her sentence is
inappropriate. As a practical matter, trial courts know the
feasibility of alternative placements in particular counties or
communities. For example, a trial court is aware of the
availability, costs, and entrance requirements of community
corrections placements in a specific locale. Additionally, 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. A defendant challenging the
placement of a sentence must convince us that the given
placement is itself inappropriate.
Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 343–44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (internal citation
omitted).
[4] In this case, Jordan violated his Mother’s trust by stealing numerous items from
her home. These items included jewelry, electronics, and yard equipment. He
then pawned these items for $880. Jordan’s actions demonstrate a disregard for
both his mother and her property.
[5] In addition, the fact that Jordan would steal from his mother reflects poorly on
his character. Jordan’s criminal history, albeit relatively minor, indicates that
he has failed to alter his behavior and refrain from continued criminal activity.
It also does not reflect well that Jordan took advantage of the leniency of the
trial court in this case by committing numerous violations of the rules of the
program. We cannot say that it was unreasonable for the trial court to infer
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-903 | July 31, 2018 Page 3 of 4
that Jordan would not respond well to similar rules if placed on probation or in
community corrections.
[6] Finally, Jordan acknowledges that he suffers from an addiction and that his
criminal behavior is generally related to his drug use. Jordan, however, has not
sought treatment for his addiction. While Jordan claims to be sober, we are
unconvinced that, even if true, such sobriety will be lasting without treatment.
For these reasons, Jordan has failed to meet his burden of convincing us that
placement in the DOC was inappropriate. See id., 876 N.E.2d at 44 (providing
that a defendant must convince us that the placement ordered by the trial court
is inappropriate).
[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-903 | July 31, 2018 Page 4 of 4