MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Mar 14 2019, 7:47 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
Michael P. DeArmitt Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Columbus, Indiana Attorney General
Evan Matthew Comer
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Russell R. Rossman, March 14, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2215
v. Appeal from the Bartholomew
Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kelly S. Benjamin,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
03C01-1802-F6-755
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2215 | March 14, 2019 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Russell R. Rossman pled guilty to two counts of Level 6 felony theft, and the
trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of two-and-a-half years, the
maximum sentence allowed by the plea agreement. Rossman now appeals,
arguing that his sentence is inappropriate. We disagree and therefore affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In December 2017, Rossman, while at the Columbus Regional Hospital, took
six laptop computers belonging to the hospital and one laptop computer
belonging to a hospital visitor, all without the owners’ permission. Rossman
was caught, and the computers were returned to the owners. The State charged
Rossman with two counts of Level 6 felony theft (one count elevated because
the value of the property was at least $750 and the other count elevated due to
Rossman’s prior criminal-conversion conviction). Thereafter, the State and
Rossman entered into a plea agreement, which provided that Rossman would
plead guilty as charged, the sentences would run concurrently, and the State
would dismiss an unrelated cause number.
[3] At the sentencing hearing, Rossman apologized for taking the computers,
explaining that he had done so to support his fourteen-year meth addiction.
Despite his drug-related criminal history, Rossman claimed that just “last
night,” an inmate made it clear to him: if he uses meth, he will be back in jail.
Tr. p. 24. The trial court identified three aggravators: (1) Rossman has a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2215 | March 14, 2019 Page 2 of 5
criminal history, including three felony convictions (theft, manufacturing
methamphetamine, and trafficking in a controlled substance with an inmate)
and four misdemeanor convictions (criminal conversion, public intoxication,
operating while intoxicated, and battery); (2) he has violated his probation
twice; and (3) he has been offered drug treatment but did not take advantage of
it. The court identified no mitigators. The court acknowledged that Rossman
pled guilty in this case but did not identify it as a mitigator based on the “big
benefit” he received by virtue of concurrent sentences in this case and the
dismissal of an unrelated cause number. Id. at 31. Accordingly, the court
sentenced Rossman to the maximum term of two-and-a-half years on each
count and, per the plea agreement, ordered the sentences to run concurrently.
[4] Rossman now appeals his sentence.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Rossman contends that his two-and-a-half-year sentence is inappropriate in
light of his character and the nature of the offenses and asks us to revise it to
one-and-a-half years.
[6] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that an appellate 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.” Whether a sentence is
inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2215 | March 14, 2019 Page 3 of 5
of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad of other factors that
come to light in a given case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind.
2008). Because we generally defer to the judgment of trial courts in sentencing
matters, defendants bear the burden of persuading us that their sentences are
inappropriate. Schaaf v. State, 54 N.E.3d 1041, 1044-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
[7] We agree with Rossman that the nature of the offenses is “not particularly
heinous.” Appellant’s Br. p. 10. Rossman stole laptop computers from a
hospital and a hospital visitor. And, as Rossman points out, the computers
were returned to the owners.
[8] As for Rossman’s character, he concedes that he cannot, “in good faith,”
challenge the aggravators that the trial court identified. Id. However, he claims
that the fact that he expressed remorse for his actions and “now understands
that he must stay away from methamphetamine” supports the revision of his
sentence to one-and-a-half years. Id. at 11 (emphasis added). The evidence
shows, however, that Rossman has had numerous chances to stay away from
meth but has not done so. As the trial court outlined, Rossman has served time
in the Department of Correction, been placed on probation five times, violated
probation two times, and undergone drug treatment. Rossman’s most recent
probation violation, from 2015, was for using meth. He was sent back to the
DOC to serve the remainder of his sentence and was released from prison in the
fall of 2016. After his release, Rossman resumed using meth and, about a year
later, committed these thefts in order to support his ounce-a-day meth habit.
Although Rossman expressed remorse at the sentencing hearing, the trial court
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2215 | March 14, 2019 Page 4 of 5
found that he was “lying” during his apology and told him to “[s]top making
excuses.” Tr. p. 31. Rossman has not met his burden of persuading us that his
sentence is inappropriate. We therefore affirm the trial court.
[9] Affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2215 | March 14, 2019 Page 5 of 5