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 Feb 28 2020, 11:03 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
Sierra A. Murray
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Richard Anderson, February 28, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-2269
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Wendy W. Davis,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
02D04-1906-F6-693
Bradford, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2269| February 28, 2020 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] In August of 2019, the trial court sentenced Richard Anderson to two-and-one-
half years of incarceration after he pled guilty to Level 6 felony forgery.
Anderson contends that his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On June 6, 2019, Anderson attempted to cash a check for $2566.97 at the Lake
City Bank. The check was made payable to Anderson from an account
belonging to WJ Carey Construction Corporation (“WJ Carey”). When the
bank teller attempted to verify the check’s authenticity, WJ Carey informed her
that the check had been forged. WJ Carey informed law enforcement that it had
mailed a check in the amount of $758.63 to another company which was never
received and that that check number matched the number on the check
Anderson had attempted to cash.
[3] On June 12, 2019, the State charged Anderson with Level 6 felony forgery, to
which he pled guilty. On August 29, 2019, the trial court sentenced Anderson to
two-and-one-half years of incarceration.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Anderson contends that his two-and-one-half year sentence is inappropriate.
We may revise a sentence if, “after due consideration of the trial court’s
decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2269| February 28, 2020 Page 2 of 4
of the offense and the character of the offender.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B).
“Sentencing is principally a discretionary function in which the trial court’s
judgment should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d
1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008) (internal citations omitted). The defendant bears the
burden of proving that his sentence is inappropriate in light of both the nature
of his offense and his character. Gil v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1231, 1237 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2013). Anderson received the maximum penalty for a Level 6 felony
conviction. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7.
[5] While not an egregious crime, the nature of Anderson’s offense does not
necessarily support a reduction in his sentence. Anderson was convicted of
Level 6 felony forgery after he attempted to cash a fraudulent check in the
amount of $2566.97 in order to purchase drugs.
[6] In any event, Anderson’s character fully justifies his maximum sentence by
itself. As a juvenile, Anderson was adjudicated delinquent for what would be
Class D felony theft, Class D felony escape, and Class A misdemeanor
marijuana possession if committed by an adult. As an adult, Anderson has
convictions for Class B felony robbery, Class C felony robbery, two counts of
Class C felony burglary, misdemeanor false informing, misdemeanor criminal
conversion, misdemeanor criminal mischief, misdemeanor resisting law
enforcement, and two counts of misdemeanor minor consumption. Moreover,
Anderson has had his probation, home-detention, and work-release placements
revoked and was on parole when he committed the offense in this matter.
Despite his many contacts with the criminal and juvenile justice systems,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2269| February 28, 2020 Page 3 of 4
Anderson has been unwilling to conform his behavior to societal norms.
Anderson has failed to establish that his sentence is inappropriate.
[7] Anderson also contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to
identify as mitigating factors his limited education, mental-health and
substance-abuse history, dependent child, and remorse. On appeal, “[a]n
allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating factor
requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both
significant and clearly supported by the record.” Carter v. State, 711 N.E.2d 835,
838 (Ind. 1999). Although Anderson has identified these alleged mitigating
factors on appeal, he has failed to provide any explanation of their significance
or identify clear support for them in the record. To the contrary, at the
sentencing hearing, Anderson’s counsel informed the trial court that some of
these factors were not mitigating, stating, “[Anderson] has struggled for some
time now with alcohol abuse and cocaine which is indicated in the presentence
report. I am not suggesting those as mitigators.” Tr. Vol. II p. 5. Anderson has
failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in this regard.
[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2269| February 28, 2020 Page 4 of 4