MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 04 2018, 9:26 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
R. Patrick Magrath Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Madison, Indiana
Kelly A. Loy
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jeremy Streeval, September 4, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-626
v. Appeal from the Bartholomew
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable James D. Worton,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
03D01-1710-F2-5617
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-626 | September 4, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Statement of the Case
[1] Jeremy Streeval appeals his sentence following his conviction for possession of
methamphetamine, as a Level 3 felony. He presents a single issue for our
review, namely, whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of
the offense and his character. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In 2017, Streeval was living in a house with several other people in Columbus.
In April of that year, Streeval’s neighbors complained to the Columbus Police
Department (“CPD”) that there was a “high volume of traffic” at the house at
“all hours of the night” and “lots of shots fired” there. Tr. Vol. 2 at 48-49.
Accordingly, Sergeant Toby Combest and other members of the Joint Narcotics
Enforcement Team (“JNET”) with the CPD began to surveille the house, and
they suspected that residents of the house were selling drugs. They also learned
that there were “a lot” of members of the Aryan Brotherhood gang “hanging
out” at the house. Id. at 52.
[3] On September 20, 2017, JNET conducted a controlled buy, and a confidential
informant bought heroin from Streeval at the house. And on October 3, a
confidential informant bought heroin from an unidentified man at the house.
Accordingly, JNET obtained a search warrant for the house, and they executed
the warrant on October 5. In the course of the search, officers found a
handgun, more than ten grams of methamphetamine, scales, and baggies.
Officers arrested Streeval at that time.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-626 | September 4, 2018 Page 2 of 5
[4] On October 11, the State charged Streeval with dealing in methamphetamine,
as a Level 2 felony; possession of methamphetamine, as a Level 3 felony; and
two counts of dealing in a narcotic drug, as Level 5 felonies. The State later
amended the information to include a habitual offender enhancement. On
January 17, 2018, Streeval executed a written plea agreement in which he
pleaded guilty to one count of possession in methamphetamine, as a Level 3
felony, and the State dismissed the other counts and the habitual offender
enhancement.
[5] The trial court accepted the guilty plea and entered judgment accordingly. At
sentencing, the court identified the following aggravators: Streeval’s criminal
history; that Streeval “has had opportunity for treatment outside of a penal
facility and has been unsuccessful”; and the “multiple petitions to revoke
probation” previously filed against him. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 83. The
court found no mitigators and sentenced Streeval to fifteen years executed.
This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Streeval asserts that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and his character. As we have explained:
Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) permits an Indiana appellate court
to “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.” We assess the trial court’s
recognition or nonrecognition of aggravators and mitigators as an
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-626 | September 4, 2018 Page 3 of 5
initial guide to determining whether the sentence imposed was
inappropriate. Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2006). The principal role of appellate review is to “leaven
the outliers.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind.
2008). A defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or
her sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review.
Roush v. State, 875 N.E.2d 801, 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
Robinson v. State, 61 N.E.3d 1226, 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
[7] Here, the trial court imposed a fifteen-year executed sentence, which is one year
shy of the maximum possible sentence for a Level 3 felony. See Ind. Code § 35-
50-2-5 (2018). Regarding the nature of the offense, Streeval asserts that the
“harm and potential harm suffered as a result of [his] commission of possession
of methamphetamine did not exceed the anticipated scope of harm
contemplated by the legislature, thus, a nearly maximum sentence was not
appropriate.” Appellant’s Br. at 13. And regarding his character, he maintains
that it does not warrant “a nearly maximum sentence” given his “relatively
young age, lengthy untreated history of addiction, and societal support,” which
“all demonstrated motive and opportunity for [him] to turn his life around and
obtain the help he need[s].” Id. at 11. We address each contention in turn.
[8] At his guilty plea hearing, Streeval admitted that, in addition to possessing
methamphetamine, he also possessed a firearm. Possession of
methamphetamine, as a Level 3 felony, does not include an element of
possession of a firearm. I.C. § 35-48-4-6.1. Further, at sentencing, Streeval
testified that, since 2012, he has supported himself by selling drugs. Thus,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-626 | September 4, 2018 Page 4 of 5
Streeval possessed the methamphetamine while he possessed a firearm and sold
drugs for a living. Accordingly, we cannot say that his sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense.
[9] As for his character, Streeval’s criminal history is significant, especially given
his age. Streeval accumulated eleven juvenile adjudications dating back to
1999, and his criminal history includes seven felonies and five misdemeanors.
Moreover, Streeval has violated probation multiple times, and he absconded
from work release twice. Finally, again, Streeval admitted that he has not been
employed since 2012, but he has supported himself by dealing drugs. We
cannot say that Streeval’s sentence is inappropriate in light of his character, and
we affirm his sentence.
[10] Affirmed.
Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-626 | September 4, 2018 Page 5 of 5