MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Oct 24 2018, 5:58 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
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
Yvette M. LaPlante Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Keating & LaPlante, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Evansville, Indiana
Chandra K. Hein
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Michael Lamar Jackson, October 24, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-905
v. Appeal from the Vanderburgh
Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Michael J. Cox,
Appellee-Plaintiff Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
82C01-1703-F4-1462
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-905 | October 24, 2018 Page 1 of 5
[1] Michael Lamar Jackson appeals his nine-year sentence for Level 4 felony
unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. 1 He argues his
sentence is inappropriate based on the nature of his offense and his character.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On March 14, 2017, police executed a search warrant at Jackson’s residence
based on information someone was dealing heroin at that location. During
their search, officers found three guns. Jackson indicated he had received one
of the guns as payment for heroin. On March 1, 2017, the State charged
Jackson with Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious
violent felon. 2
[3] On February 26, 2018, Jackson entered a guilty plea under which the parties left
sentencing to the discretion of the trial court. On March 23, 2018, the trial
court held a sentencing hearing and then sentenced Jackson to nine years
executed in the Department of Correction.
Discussion and Decision
1
Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5(c) (2016).
2
Jackson does not deny he is a serious violent felon based on his prior conviction of robbery.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-905 | October 24, 2018 Page 2 of 5
[4] We may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and the character of the offender. Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 633
(Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)). Our review is deferential
to the trial court’s decision, and our goal is to determine whether the appellant’s
sentence is inappropriate, not whether some other sentence would be more
appropriate. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012), reh’g denied. We
consider not only the aggravators and mitigators found by the trial court, but
also any other factors appearing in the record. Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852,
856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating his
sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
[5] When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting
point to determine the appropriateness of a sentence. Anglemyer v. State, 868
N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g 878 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). The
advisory sentence for a Level 4 felony is six years, with a sentencing range of
two to twelve years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5 (2014). The trial court sentenced
Jackson to nine years.
[6] One factor we consider when determining the appropriateness of a deviation
from the advisory sentence is whether there is anything more or less egregious
about the offense committed by the defendant that makes it different from the
“typical” offense accounted for by the legislature when it set the advisory
sentence. Rich v. State, 890 N.E.2d 44, 54 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied.
Here, Jackson argues his offense, Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a
firearm by a serious violent felon, was a non-violent crime and he only
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-905 | October 24, 2018 Page 3 of 5
possessed the firearms for protection. However, the State presented evidence
the firearms in question were stolen, had been given to Jackson as payment for
drugs, and were found in an apartment where police found evidence of heroin
dealing. Based thereon, we cannot say Jackson’s sentence is inappropriate
based on the nature of his offense. See Shotts v. State, 53 N.E.3d 526, 539 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2016 (sentence not inappropriate for unlawful possession of a firearm
by a serious violent felon despite Shotts’ argument that the details of the crime
could not be considered the “most egregious”), trans. denied.
[7] When considering the character of the offender, one relevant fact is the
appellant’s criminal history. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2007). The significance of criminal history in assessing a defendant’s
character varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in
relation to the current offense. Id. In his brief, Jackson acknowledges he “has
far from a clean past[,]” (Br. of Appellant at 8), and cites to the “well-prepared
colloquy,” (id.), he presented to the trial court. While Jackson’s statement
focuses on his efforts to rehabilitate his behavior, such as receiving his
associate’s degree and speaking to young people about the dangers of criminal
activity, it ignores that he continued to deflect responsibility for possessing the
firearm by claiming the firearm belonged to his roommate.
[8] Jackson’s statement and argument on appeal attempt to mask his lengthy
criminal history, which started when he was a juvenile and escalated in severity
into his adulthood. Jackson has twenty-three prior misdemeanor and four prior
felony convictions, ranging from substance-related offenses to criminal deviate
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-905 | October 24, 2018 Page 4 of 5
conduct and robbery. We cannot say Jackson’s sentence is inappropriate based
on his character. See Perry v. State, 78 N.E.3d 1, 13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017)
(sentence not inappropriate based on Perry’s extensive criminal history and
veiled expression of remorse).
Conclusion
[9] Based on the nature of his offense and his character, Jackson’s sentence is not
inappropriate. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision.
[10] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-905 | October 24, 2018 Page 5 of 5