WOODWARD v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Justin Todd Woodward pled guilty to Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe and was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison. He now appeals, arguing his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In September 2023, Woodward, who was on probation in two cases, was arrested and charged with Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe, Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. While on pretrial release, Woodward completed some drug-treatment programs. Woodward, however, failed to appear for a hearing in May 2024, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. When the police tried to serve the arrest warrant on Woodward in June, he fled and was charged with Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement (he later pled guilty).

[3] In July, Woodward pled guilty in this case to Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining charges. Sentencing was left to the discretion of the trial court. At sentencing, evidence was presented that Woodward, age forty-five, has an extensive criminal history, including eleven felonies and fifteen misdemeanors. See Tr. p. 14. In addition, Woodward “has been on probation 15 times in the past, has violated it 14 times, and had it revoked 7 times.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 49. Woodward asked to be placed on community corrections or probation. Based on Woodward's criminal history and probation violations, the trial court sentenced him to two-and-a-half years in prison.

[4] Woodward now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Woodward contends his two-and-a-half-year sentence is inappropriate and asks us to revise it under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that an appellate 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.” The appellate court's role under Rule 7(B) is to “leaven the outliers,” and “we reserve our 7(B) authority for exceptional cases.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 160 (Ind. 2019) (quotation omitted). “Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.” Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008)). Because we generally defer to the judgment of trial courts in sentencing matters, defendants must persuade us that their sentences are inappropriate. Schaaf v. State, 54 N.E.3d 1041, 1044-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

[6] The sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is six months to two-and-a-half years, with an advisory sentence of one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7. Here, the trial court sentenced Woodward to the maximum term.

[7] We agree with Woodward that there is nothing particularly egregious about his offense. But Woodward's character easily supports his sentence. Woodward has eleven felony convictions and fifteen misdemeanor convictions. He has been on probation fifteen times, violated it fourteen times, and had it revoked seven times. Indeed, Woodward was on probation when he committed this offense. Although Woodward completed treatment while on pretrial release in this case, he later failed to appear for a hearing and then fled from the police as they tried to serve the arrest warrant on him. Woodward has failed to persuade us that his two-and-a-half-year sentence is inappropriate.

[8] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and Crone, Sr. J., concur.