MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 27 2020, 9:52 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Kimberly A. Jackson Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Sierra A. Murray Deputy Attorney General
Alexis G. Sizemore Certified Legal Intern Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
James Darren Pearman, July 27, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-39 v. Appeal from the Vermillion Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Jill Wesch, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause Nos. 83C01-1811-F6-171 83C01-1908-F6-139
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-39| July 27, 2020 Page 1 of 6 [1] James Darren Pearman appeals his aggregate sentence for theft and two counts
of possession of methamphetamine as level 6 felonies. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On November 13, 2018, Pearman knowingly or intentionally possessed pure or
adulterated methamphetamine. That same day, he committed theft of a TC-70
handheld scanner worth at least $750 from Walmart. On November 15, 2018,
the State charged Pearman under cause number 83C01-1811-F6-171 (“Cause
No. 171”) with possession of methamphetamine and theft as level 6 felonies,
possession of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor, and possession of
paraphernalia as a class C misdemeanor. The State also alleged that he was an
habitual offender.
[3] On August 22, 2019, while on bond with respect to the charges under Cause
No. 171, Pearman knowingly possessed methamphetamine. On August 23,
2019, the State charged Pearman under cause number 83C01-1908-F6-139
(“Cause No. 139”) with possession of methamphetamine as a level 6 felony and
operating a motor vehicle while driving privileges are suspended as a class A
misdemeanor.
[4] On November 6, 2019, Pearman and the State entered into a plea agreement
pursuant to which Pearman agreed to plead guilty to possession of
methamphetamine and theft as level 6 felonies under Cause No. 171 and
possession of methamphetamine as a level 6 felony under Cause No. 139, and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-39| July 27, 2020 Page 2 of 6 the State agreed to dismiss the other charges and allegation that he was an
[5] At a hearing on December 3, 2019, the trial court accepted the plea agreement.
Pearman testified that he had a drug addiction for about twenty years. When
asked about the sort of prior treatment he had for drug addiction, he answered:
“Hamilton Center, AA classes, NA classes. I just done the MRT program.”
Transcript Volume II at 68. He indicated that he started the MRT program
after he was incarcerated and had just completed it. When asked if there was
some concern about his release given his addiction, he answered: “I’m not
concerned. I’m done with it.” Id. at 71. When asked if he could use help upon
being released from jail, he answered: “Well, yes. I could use some help, yes.
A sponsor.” Id. Defense counsel introduced and the court admitted a letter
from the Resident Coordinator of Salvaged Lives Life Center indicating that
there was a bed available for Pearman. Pearman indicated he might be able to
do home detention.
[6] Pearman’s wife stated that she did not post the bond for him in part because she
wanted him to “dry out” and “get the drugs out of his system.” Id. at 75. She
testified that she observed a positive change in Pearman since he had been in
jail. She stated that “home detention would not be an option” and she thought
participating in the Salvaged Lives Life Center would “be the best.” Id. at 76.
[7] The court found Pearman’s completion of the MRT program during his
incarceration and his guilty plea to be mitigating factors. It found his criminal
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-39| July 27, 2020 Page 3 of 6 history to be an aggravating circumstance, stating, “Mr. Pearman, the reason
the Court is sentencing you to the Department of Corrections, your aggravating
circumstance is your criminal history. It’s quite lengthy. Four felonies, 12 prior
misdemeanors and these two felonies. One was committed while you were out
on bond for the other.” Id. at 81.
[8] In Cause No. 171, the trial court sentenced Pearman to concurrent terms of two
and one-half years each for possession of methamphetamine and theft. In
Cause No. 139, it sentenced Pearman to one and one-half years for possession
of methamphetamine and ordered that he serve the sentence consecutively to
the sentence imposed under Cause No. 171. In both cases, the court
recommended Recovery While Incarcerated and noted it would consider a
modification of the sentence upon successful completion of the clinically
appropriate substance abuse treatment program as determined by the
Department of Correction.
Discussion
[9] The issue is whether Pearman’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature
of the offenses and his character. Pearman argues that his sentence is
inappropriate because his offenses were the product of his long-term addiction
for which he had never received intensive treatment and he has demonstrated
his commitment to future sobriety since being incarcerated.
[10] Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “may revise a sentence authorized by
statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, [we find] that the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-39| July 27, 2020 Page 4 of 6 sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character
of the offender.” Under this rule, the burden is on the defendant to persuade
the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State,
848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
[11] Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b) provides that a person who commits a level 6 felony
shall be imprisoned for a fixed term between six months and two and one-half
years, with the advisory sentence being one year.
[12] Our review of the nature of the offenses reveals that Pearman knowingly or
intentionally possessed pure or adulterated methamphetamine and committed
theft of a TC-70 handheld scanner worth at least $750 from Walmart. While on
bond for these offenses, he knowingly possessed methamphetamine.
[13] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Pearman pled guilty to
theft and two counts of possession of methamphetamine as level 6 felonies and
the State agreed to dismiss charges of possession of marijuana as a class B
misdemeanor, possession of paraphernalia as a class C misdemeanor, and
operating a motor vehicle while driving privileges are suspended as a class A
misdemeanor, as well as the allegation that Pearman was an habitual offender.
Pearman testified at the guilty plea hearing that he has had a drug addiction
problem for about twenty years and, prior to his arrest, he used
methamphetamine daily.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 27 2020, 9:52 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Kimberly A. Jackson Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Sierra A. Murray Deputy Attorney General
Alexis G. Sizemore Certified Legal Intern Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
James Darren Pearman, July 27, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-39 v. Appeal from the Vermillion Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Jill Wesch, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause Nos. 83C01-1811-F6-171 83C01-1908-F6-139
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-39| July 27, 2020 Page 1 of 6 [1] James Darren Pearman appeals his aggregate sentence for theft and two counts
of possession of methamphetamine as level 6 felonies. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On November 13, 2018, Pearman knowingly or intentionally possessed pure or
adulterated methamphetamine. That same day, he committed theft of a TC-70
handheld scanner worth at least $750 from Walmart. On November 15, 2018,
the State charged Pearman under cause number 83C01-1811-F6-171 (“Cause
No. 171”) with possession of methamphetamine and theft as level 6 felonies,
possession of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor, and possession of
paraphernalia as a class C misdemeanor. The State also alleged that he was an
habitual offender.
[3] On August 22, 2019, while on bond with respect to the charges under Cause
No. 171, Pearman knowingly possessed methamphetamine. On August 23,
2019, the State charged Pearman under cause number 83C01-1908-F6-139
(“Cause No. 139”) with possession of methamphetamine as a level 6 felony and
operating a motor vehicle while driving privileges are suspended as a class A
misdemeanor.
[4] On November 6, 2019, Pearman and the State entered into a plea agreement
pursuant to which Pearman agreed to plead guilty to possession of
methamphetamine and theft as level 6 felonies under Cause No. 171 and
possession of methamphetamine as a level 6 felony under Cause No. 139, and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-39| July 27, 2020 Page 2 of 6 the State agreed to dismiss the other charges and allegation that he was an
[5] At a hearing on December 3, 2019, the trial court accepted the plea agreement.
Pearman testified that he had a drug addiction for about twenty years. When
asked about the sort of prior treatment he had for drug addiction, he answered:
“Hamilton Center, AA classes, NA classes. I just done the MRT program.”
Transcript Volume II at 68. He indicated that he started the MRT program
after he was incarcerated and had just completed it. When asked if there was
some concern about his release given his addiction, he answered: “I’m not
concerned. I’m done with it.” Id. at 71. When asked if he could use help upon
being released from jail, he answered: “Well, yes. I could use some help, yes.
A sponsor.” Id. Defense counsel introduced and the court admitted a letter
from the Resident Coordinator of Salvaged Lives Life Center indicating that
there was a bed available for Pearman. Pearman indicated he might be able to
do home detention.
[6] Pearman’s wife stated that she did not post the bond for him in part because she
wanted him to “dry out” and “get the drugs out of his system.” Id. at 75. She
testified that she observed a positive change in Pearman since he had been in
jail. She stated that “home detention would not be an option” and she thought
participating in the Salvaged Lives Life Center would “be the best.” Id. at 76.
[7] The court found Pearman’s completion of the MRT program during his
incarceration and his guilty plea to be mitigating factors. It found his criminal
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-39| July 27, 2020 Page 3 of 6 history to be an aggravating circumstance, stating, “Mr. Pearman, the reason
the Court is sentencing you to the Department of Corrections, your aggravating
circumstance is your criminal history. It’s quite lengthy. Four felonies, 12 prior
misdemeanors and these two felonies. One was committed while you were out
on bond for the other.” Id. at 81.
[8] In Cause No. 171, the trial court sentenced Pearman to concurrent terms of two
and one-half years each for possession of methamphetamine and theft. In
Cause No. 139, it sentenced Pearman to one and one-half years for possession
of methamphetamine and ordered that he serve the sentence consecutively to
the sentence imposed under Cause No. 171. In both cases, the court
recommended Recovery While Incarcerated and noted it would consider a
modification of the sentence upon successful completion of the clinically
appropriate substance abuse treatment program as determined by the
Department of Correction.
Discussion
[9] The issue is whether Pearman’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature
of the offenses and his character. Pearman argues that his sentence is
inappropriate because his offenses were the product of his long-term addiction
for which he had never received intensive treatment and he has demonstrated
his commitment to future sobriety since being incarcerated.
[10] Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “may revise a sentence authorized by
statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, [we find] that the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-39| July 27, 2020 Page 4 of 6 sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character
of the offender.” Under this rule, the burden is on the defendant to persuade
the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State,
848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
[11] Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b) provides that a person who commits a level 6 felony
shall be imprisoned for a fixed term between six months and two and one-half
years, with the advisory sentence being one year.
[12] Our review of the nature of the offenses reveals that Pearman knowingly or
intentionally possessed pure or adulterated methamphetamine and committed
theft of a TC-70 handheld scanner worth at least $750 from Walmart. While on
bond for these offenses, he knowingly possessed methamphetamine.
[13] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Pearman pled guilty to
theft and two counts of possession of methamphetamine as level 6 felonies and
the State agreed to dismiss charges of possession of marijuana as a class B
misdemeanor, possession of paraphernalia as a class C misdemeanor, and
operating a motor vehicle while driving privileges are suspended as a class A
misdemeanor, as well as the allegation that Pearman was an habitual offender.
Pearman testified at the guilty plea hearing that he has had a drug addiction
problem for about twenty years and, prior to his arrest, he used
methamphetamine daily. He also testified that he previously received addiction
treatment through the Hamilton Center as a condition of probation and
attended AA and NA classes. While incarcerated, he completed the MRT
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-39| July 27, 2020 Page 5 of 6 program and continued to attend classes after graduating. When asked about
his concern regarding his drug addiction after release, Pearman stated “I’m not
concerned. I’m done with it.” Transcript 70-71.
[14] As a juvenile, Pearman had adjudications for criminal mischief, conversion,
and possession of marijuana. As an adult, Pearman has been convicted of four
felonies and twelve misdemeanors. His convictions include sexual misconduct
with a minor, theft, retail theft, domestic battery, operating a vehicle with a
BAC of .08 or more, battery resulting in bodily injury, resisting law
enforcement, possession of paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana. He has
violated terms of his probation three times and has been unsatisfactorily
discharged from probation three times.
[15] After due consideration, we conclude that Pearman has not sustained his
burden of establishing that his aggregate sentence of four years is inappropriate
in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.
[16] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Pearman’s sentence.
[17] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-39| July 27, 2020 Page 6 of 6