MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 14 2019, 10:07 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
John Kindley Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Samantha M. Sumcad
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Darrell T. Green, June 14, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-418
v. Appeal from the Randolph Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jay L. Toney,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
68C01-1804-F5-264
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-418 | June 14, 2019 Page 1 of 5
Statement of the Case
[1] Darrell T. Green appeals his sentence following his conviction for dealing in
methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony, pursuant to a guilty plea. Green raises
one 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] On September 21, 2017, Green sold 0.92 gram of methamphetamine to a
confidential informant (“CI”) for the Randolph County Sheriff’s Department in
exchange for $100. Green again sold 0.35 gram of methamphetamine to the CI
in exchange for $40 on September 25. And, on October 4, Green sold 1.26
grams of methamphetamine to the CI in exchange for $150. As a result, the
State charged Green with one count of dealing in methamphetamine, as a Level
4 felony; two counts of dealing in methamphetamine, as Level 5 felonies; three
counts of possession of methamphetamine, as Level 6 felonies; and three counts
of maintaining a common nuisance, as Level 6 felonies.
[3] On October 2, 2018, Green pleaded guilty to one count of dealing in
methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony. Pursuant to his guilty plea, the parties
agreed that Green’s sentence would be three years, but that “[t]he amount of
any suspended time, if any, as well as any probationary period, if any shall be
left to the discretion of the Court.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 27. In exchange
for his plea, the State dismissed the remaining charges. Following a hearing,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-418 | June 14, 2019 Page 2 of 5
the trial court accepted Green’s guilty plea. The court then sentenced Green to
three years, all executed in the Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Green contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “[t]he
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.” This court
has recently held that “[t]he advisory sentence is the starting point the
legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.”
Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). And the Indiana
Supreme Court has recently explained that:
The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to
leaven the outliers . . . but not achieve a perceived “correct”
result in each case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind.
2008). Defendant has the burden to persuade us that the
sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Anglemyer v.
State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind.), as amended (July 10, 2007),
decision clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).
Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original).
[5] Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate
sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court’s judgment “should
receive considerable deference.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. Whether we
regard a sentence as inappropriate at the end of the day turns on “our sense of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-418 | June 14, 2019 Page 3 of 5
the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to
others, and myriad other facts that come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224.
The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather
whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265,
268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] unless
overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the
offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the
defendant’s character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples
of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).
[6] The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one year to six years, with an
advisory sentence of three years. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b) (2018). Pursuant
to the plea agreement, the court sentenced Green to a term of three years. The
court identified as an aggravating factor Green’s criminal history, and the court
found that there were no mitigating factors. Accordingly, the trial court
ordered Green to execute all three years in the Department of Correction.
[7] On appeal, Green asserts that his “executed prison sentence for delivering meth
to support his own habit is inappropriate for the simple and true reason that
vices are not crimes[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 4. Specifically, he contends that his
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense because dealing in
methamphetamine is simply “a vice, rather than a crime.” Reply Br. at 3. And
Green contends that, because dealing in methamphetamine is a vice rather than
a crime, his character is “merely vicious” but not criminal. Id. (emphasis
removed). In essence, Green contends that his sentence is inappropriate
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-418 | June 14, 2019 Page 4 of 5
because he did not commit a crime. But our legislature has clearly stated that
dealing in methamphetamine is a crime. See I.C. § 35-48-4-1.1.
[8] Green has not persuaded us that his sentence is inappropriate. Other than his
simple assertion that dealing in methamphetamine is not a crime and that his
character is merely vicious, Green does not make any other argument on appeal
to explain why his executed sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of
the offense or his character. Green received the bargained-for advisory sentence
despite his extensive criminal history, which includes several felony convictions
for dealing in marijuana or possession of a controlled substance and a prior
probation violation. We cannot say that Green’s sentence in inappropriate, and
we affirm his sentence.
[9] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-418 | June 14, 2019 Page 5 of 5