Troy A. Buchanan v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 21, 2018
• Docket: 70A01-1709-CR-2208
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Feb 21 2018, 8:58 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Brooklyn, Indiana Katherine Cooper Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Troy A. Buchanan, February 21, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 70A01-1709-CR-2208 v. Appeal from the Rush Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Brian D. Hill, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 70D01-1605-F5-383

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A01-1709-CR-2208 | February 21, 2018 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] Troy A. Buchanan appeals his five-year sentence imposed by the trial court

following his guilty plea to level 5 felony dealing in methamphetamine. He

argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and

his character. Finding that Buchanan has not met his burden of demonstrating

that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In September 2015, Buchanan delivered methamphetamine to an acquaintance

of his, who then sold it to an undercover police officer. The State charged

Buchanan with level 5 felony dealing in methamphetamine and level 6 felony

possession of methamphetamine. In July 2017, pursuant to a written plea

agreement, Buchanan pled guilty to the dealing charge, and the State agreed to

drop the possession charge.

[3] The plea agreement left sentencing to the trial court’s discretion. During

sentencing, the trial court found as a primary aggravating factor Buchanan’s

extensive criminal history, which included fourteen misdemeanor and four

felony convictions, and four violations of probation and community

corrections. The trial court identified as a mitigating factor Buchanan’s

willingness to plead guilty, but noted that it had taken him over a year to do so.

The trial court sentenced Buchanan to five years. This appeal ensued.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A01-1709-CR-2208 | February 21, 2018 Page 2 of 5 Discussion and Decision [4] Buchanan invites this Court to reduce his sentence pursuant to Indiana

Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that we may revise a sentence authorized

by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find that the

sentence is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character

of the offender.” The defendant bears the burden to persuade this Court that

his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind.

2006). As we assess the nature of the offense and character of the offender, “we

may look to any factors appearing in the record.” Boling v. State, 982 N.E.2d

1055, 1060 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). 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 v.

State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008).

[5] The principal role of appellate review is to attempt to “leaven the outliers.” Id.

at 1225. Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate at the end of the day

turns on “our sense of 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. In conducting our review, we do not look to see whether the

defendant’s sentence is appropriate or “if another sentence might be more

appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is

inappropriate.” Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A01-1709-CR-2208 | February 21, 2018 Page 3 of 5 [6] Regarding the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting point

that the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime

committed. Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014). The advisory

sentence for a level 5 felony is three years, with a fixed term between one and

six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6. Buchanan maintains that his offense did not

warrant a five-year sentence because he delivered a relatively small amount of

methamphetamine to someone he knew and that there is nothing “remarkable”

about his offense. Appellant’s Br. at 7. Although his offense is not particularly

egregious, this is not Buchanan’s first offense involving drugs. In 2004 he was

convicted of possession of a narcotic drug, and in 2015 he was convicted of

possession of paraphernalia.

As for his character, Buchanan emphasizes that he admitted to the delivery of

methamphetamine and accepted responsibility for his actions. When

considering the character of the offender, one relevant consideration is the

defendant’s criminal history. “The significance of a criminal history in

assessing a defendant's character and an appropriate sentence varies based on

the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current

offense.” Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

Buchanan has an extensive criminal history which includes fourteen

misdemeanor and four felony convictions. He blames his criminal history on

drugs and alcohol, “which he has struggled with since he was a young

teenager.” Appellant’s Br. at 8. However, Buchanan’s many contacts with the

law have not caused him to reform himself. He has also been granted the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A01-1709-CR-2208 | February 21, 2018 Page 4 of 5 leniency of probation and community corrections, but has violated both

multiple times which reflect poorly on his character.

[7] We find that Buchanan has not met his burden of demonstrating that the five-

year sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate in light of the nature of

the offense or his character. Accordingly, we affirm.

[8] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Bradford, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A01-1709-CR-2208 | February 21, 2018 Page 5 of 5