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

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