Dustin E. Mattson, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Dustin Mattson appeals his eight-year sentence for criminal confinement, a Level 5 felony, and his status as an habitual offender. Mattson argues that his sentence is inappropriate. Our review, however, does not reveal that Mattson's sentence is inappropriate, and we affirm.

Issue

[2] Mattson raises one issue, which we restate as whether his eight-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.

Facts

[3] On September 17, 2023, Mattson and his wife were arguing. Mattson grabbed his wife's face; refused to let her leave the house; and grabbed her by the shoulder when she attempted to leave with her two children. When officers arrived, Mattson's wife's lip was bleeding.

[4] The State charged Mattson with criminal confinement, a Level 5 felony; domestic battery, a Level 6 felony; and alleged that Mattson was an habitual offender. Mattson pleaded guilty to criminal confinement, a Level 5 felony, and admitted to being an habitual offender. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the domestic battery charge and agreed that Mattson would be placed in a therapeutic program at House of Hope ¹ before sentencing. Additionally, if Mattson successfully completed the therapeutic program, the State agreed to dismiss the habitual offender enhancement and agreed to a suspended sentence on the criminal confinement conviction. If Mattson was unsuccessfully terminated from the therapeutic program, Mattson and the State agreed that Mattson would be sentenced by the trial court for the criminal confinement conviction enhanced by his status as an habitual offender.

[5] On February 27, 2024, House of Hope discharged Mattson for “excessive rule violations,” and he left the facility rather than wait for transportation back to the jail. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 66. A warrant was issued for Mattson's arrest, and he was ultimately arrested on July 17, 2024.

[6] The trial court held a sentencing hearing on August 29, 2024. The trial court found Mattson's guilty plea was a mitigating factor. The trial court found Mattson's criminal history and the fact that he absconded for six months as aggravating factors. The trial court sentenced Mattson to four years for the Level 5 felony conviction enhanced by four years for his status as an habitual offender. The trial court indicated that it would consider a sentence modification after a year if Mattson completed a Recovery While Incarcerated program. Mattson now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Mattson argues that his eight-year sentence is inappropriate. The Indiana Constitution authorizes independent appellate review and revision of sentences imposed by a trial court. Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 122 (Ind. 2024) (citing Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6). This authority, as implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), enables this Court to “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.” Deference to the trial court's sentence should prevail unless “overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense and the defendant's character.” Oberhansley v. State, 208 N.E.3d 1261, 1267 (Ind. 2023) (internal quotations omitted). A defendant, however, need not show that both the nature of the offense and his or her character warrant revision; rather, “a strong showing on one prong” may “outweigh a weak showing” on the other prong. Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 127.

[8] Additionally, in determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we are not limited to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances found by the trial court. Oberhansley, 208 N.E.3d at 1271. “Our role is primarily to leaven the outliers and identify guiding principles for sentencers, rather than to achieve the perceived correct result in each case.” Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 122 (internal quotations omitted). “Ultimately, we rely on our collective judgment as to the balance of all the relevant considerations involved, which include the 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.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

[9] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, the advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014). In the case at hand, Mattson was convicted of a Level 5 felony and was found to be an habitual offender. Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-6(b), the sentence for a Level 5 felony is between one and six years with an advisory term of three years. Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-8(i)(2), a person who has been convicted of a Level 5 or Level 6 felony and who has been found to be an habitual offender is sentenced to an enhancement of between three and six years. Here, the trial court sentenced Mattson to four years for the Level 5 felony enhanced by four years for his status as an habitual offender.

A. Nature of the Offense

[10] Our analysis of the “nature of the offense” requires us to look at the extent, brutality, and heinousness of the offense. See Wilson v. State, 157 N.E.3d 1163, 1182 (Ind. 2020). We may also consider whether the offender was in “a position of trust” with the victim. Ramirez v. State, 174 N.E.3d 181, 202 (Ind. 2021).

[11] Mattson argues that his offense was “not particularly remarkable.” Appellant's Br. p. 7. Mattson confined and battered his wife while in the presence of his children. When officers arrived, his wife's lip was bleeding. While not the most heinous actions, we find nothing in Mattson's actions to warrant a reduction in his sentence.

B. Character of the Offender

[12] Our analysis of the character of the offender involves a broad consideration of a defendant's qualities, including the defendant's age, criminal history, background, past rehabilitative efforts, and remorse. See Harris v. State, 165 N.E.3d 91, 100 (Ind. 2021); McCain v. State, 148 N.E.3d 977, 985 (Ind. 2020). The significance of a criminal history in assessing a defendant's character and an appropriate sentence vary based on the “gravity, nature and number of prior offenses as they relate to the current offense.” McElfresh v. State, 51 N.E.3d 103, 112 (Ind. 2016). “Even a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendant's character.” Prince v. State, 148 N.E.3d 1171, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).

[13] Mattson has an extensive criminal history, including felony convictions for theft, a Class D felony; robbery, a Class B felony; burglary, a Class B felony, identity deception, a Class D felony; auto theft, a Level 6 felony; possession of a narcotic drug, a Level 6 felony; possession of a controlled substance, a Class D felony; and domestic battery, a Level 6 felony. Mattson also has misdemeanor convictions for illegal possession of an alcoholic beverage; battery resulting in bodily injury; leaving the scene of an accident; two convictions for identity theft; unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia; operating a vehicle while intoxicated; driving while suspended; and resisting law enforcement. Mattson has also violated his probation on numerous occasions.

[14] Mattson, who is thirty-three years old, argues that his sentence should be reduced because he turned to illicit drugs after falling while working and sustaining serious injuries. He also admits, however, that drug abuse “has been the primary issue in [his] life since he was a teenager.” Appellant's Br. p. 8. We note that Mattson has repeatedly been ordered to address his substance abuse and anger management issues. Mattson, however, has failed to take advantage of these opportunities. Given Mattson's extensive criminal history, probation violations, and continuing substance abuse and anger management issues, we cannot say the eight-year sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate.

Conclusion

[15] Mattson's sentence is not inappropriate. Accordingly, we affirm.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   House Of Hope is a halfway house program or transitional residential facility for adult males addicted to alcohol and/or drugs. See https://andhouseofhope.org/description [https://perma.cc/KAC3-Y698].

Tavitas, Judge.

Chief Judge Altice and Judge Brown concur. Altice, C.J., and Brown, J., concur.