Joshua A. Guntle v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 21, 2018
• Docket: 38A02-1707-CR-1604
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), May 21 2018, 6:57 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court

the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Brandon E. Murphy Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Cannon Bruns & Murphy, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Muncie, Indiana Jesse R. Drum Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Joshua A. Guntle, May 21, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 38A02-1707-CR-1604 v. Appeal from the Jay Circuit Court The Honorable Brian D. State of Indiana, Hutchison, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No. 38C01-1604-F5-21

Bailey, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 38A02-1707-CR-1604 | May 21, 2018 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] Joshua Guntle (“Guntle”) appeals the five-year sentence imposed following his

plea of guilty to Dealing in Methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony. He presents

the sole issue of whether his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On August 21, 2014, Guntle received a box of pseudoephedrine from a

confidential informant (“the C.I.”) and, in exchange therefor, provided the C.I.

with methamphetamine. On April 21, 2016, the State of Indiana charged

Guntle with Dealing in Methamphetamine. On June 1, 2017, after a jury was

convened, Guntle pled guilty as charged. On June 27, 2017, Guntle was

sentenced to five years imprisonment. He now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [3] Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-6(b) provides that a person convicted of a Level 5

felony faces a sentencing range of one to six years, with an advisory sentence of

three years. Guntle asks that we revise his sentence to four years, with two

years suspended.

[4] Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), this “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.” In performing our review, we assess “the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 38A02-1707-CR-1604 | May 21, 2018 Page 2 of 4 culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to

others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell v.

State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). The principal role of such review is

to attempt to leaven the outliers. Id. at 1225.

[5] We give “considerable deference” to the trial court’s judgment. Stephenson v.

State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015) (citing Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222).

“Such deference will prevail” unless it is overcome by compelling evidence that

portrays in a positive light the nature of the offense and the defendant’s

character. Id.

[6] As for the nature of the offense, Guntle gave methamphetamine to the C.I. in

exchange for a box of pseudoephedrine. There is nothing particularly

remarkable about this transaction.

[7] Guntle has a history of criminal offenses both before and after his commission

of this offense in 2014. In 2012, he was convicted of theft, as a Class D felony.

He was convicted of three misdemeanor offenses in 2008 and 2013. Less than

one month after committing the instant offense, Guntle failed to return to

lawful detention. He was convicted of a Level 6 felony for that conduct. Later

in the same month, Guntle committed misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

On October 17, 2014, two months after the instant offense, Guntle possessed a

narcotic drug and methamphetamine and resisted law enforcement. He pled

guilty to the charges against him. At the time of his sentencing here, Guntle

was facing additional charges that he dealt a narcotic drug and possessed a

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 38A02-1707-CR-1604 | May 21, 2018 Page 3 of 4 syringe. Guntle has repeatedly violated the terms of probation and he was

arrested while out on bond. Guntle’s criminal history and continued

commission of drug-related offenses, together with his failure to benefit from

prior opportunities for rehabilitation, speak ill of his character.

[8] Having reviewed the matter, we conclude that the trial court did not impose an

inappropriate sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B), and the sentence does not

warrant appellate revision. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the sentence

imposed by the trial court.

[9] Affirmed.

Crone, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 38A02-1707-CR-1604 | May 21, 2018 Page 4 of 4