ADKINS v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Andrew R. Adkins (“Adkins”) pleaded guilty to failure to return to lawful detention ¹ as a Level 6 felony and was sentenced to two years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”). Adkins appeals his sentence, arguing that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On November 8, 2023, Adkins was sentenced to Elkhart County Community Corrections under a separate cause number and placed on work release. When Adkins reported to a work release facility in Goshen, Indiana on November 9, 2023, he signed a work release contract. The contract stipulated that Adkins would only leave the facility with permission from Elkhart County Community Corrections and would return following any temporary leave granted.

[3] On December 26, 2023, Adkins received permission to leave the work release facility on a three-hour pass to visit the hospital. Adkins did not return to the facility at his scheduled time. He relapsed and remained at large for four months until his arrest on April 26, 2024. Due to his failure to return, the State charged Adkins with Level 6 felony failure to return to lawful detention on January 12, 2024. When he was charged with the instant offense, Adkins also faced allegations of violations in alternative-sentencing programs in three other cause numbers.

[4] On June 26, 2024, Adkins pleaded guilty as charged. The sentencing hearing was held on July 24, 2024. At sentencing, Adkins presented a letter that, pending release from incarceration, he had been accepted into Avenues Recovery of Fort Wayne. Adkins's presentence investigation report (“the PSI”) detailed his criminal history, which included prior felony convictions for fraud, theft, battery by means of a deadly weapon, and two convictions for possession of methamphetamine, along with prior misdemeanor convictions for domestic battery, battery, criminal recklessness, theft, and resisting law enforcement. He also had two prior convictions for Level 6 felony failing to return to lawful detention. The PSI also indicated that Adkins had “violated community supervision at least ten times in the past” and had received prior substance-abuse treatment both while inside and outside of the DOC. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 53. The trial court sentenced Adkins to two years executed in the DOC. The trial court designated Adkins for Purposeful Incarceration and stated it would consider a sentence modification upon “successful completion of Purposeful Incarceration/Recovery While Incarcerated.” Id. at 72. Adkins now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Adkins argues that his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). The Indiana Constitution authorizes appellate review and revision of a trial court's sentencing decision. See Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6; Jackson v. State, 145 N.E.3d 783, 784 (Ind. 2020). “That authority is implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), which permits an appellate court to revise a sentence if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the sentence is found to be inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 159 (Ind. 2019).

[6] Our review under Appellate Rule 7(B) focuses on “the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). We generally defer to the trial court's sentencing decision, and our goal is to determine whether the defendant's sentence is inappropriate, not whether some other sentence would be more appropriate. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). “Such deference should prevail unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant's character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[7] Here, Adkins was convicted of Level 6 felony failure to return to lawful detention. A person who commits a Level 6 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between six months and two and a half years, with the advisory sentence being one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). The trial court sentenced Adkins to two years executed in the DOC and designated Adkins for Purposeful Incarceration, stating that the court would consider sentence modification upon successful completion of Purposeful Incarceration/Recovery While Incarcerated.

[8] When reviewing the nature of the offense, this court considers “the details and circumstances of the commission of the offense.” Merriweather v. State, 151 N.E.3d 1281, 1286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). In arguing that his sentence is inappropriate, Adkins asserts that the offense for which he was convicted was not “inherently violent and [did] not involve harm to any individual” nor was it “a part of an escape plan to evade justice permanently but rather arose from his struggle with substance abuse and personal crises.” Appellant's Br. p. 8. Looking to the circumstances of the instant offense, while Adkins was serving a sentence for a previous crime, he absconded from his work release placement after being given the grace of a three-hour pass to visit the hospital. Adkins failed to return to detention in late December 2023 and remained at large for four months until his arrest in late April 2024. Absconding from lawful detention for that period of time does not indicate a mere mistake but instead an intentional flight from custody. In arguing his sentence is inappropriate, Adkins attempts to minimize his criminal conduct by characterizing his actions as non-violent and non-harmful. Yet, neither harm nor violence was an element of the offense for which he was convicted. All in all, Adkins has not demonstrated that the nature of the offense warrants disturbing the trial court's sentence.

[9] The character of the offender is found in what we learn from the offender's life and conduct. Merriweather, 151 N.E.3d at 1286. “A defendant's criminal history is one relevant factor in analyzing character, the significance of which varies based on the ‘gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current offense.’ ” Smoots v. State, 172 N.E.3d 1279, 1290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)). Adkins asserts that his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character because although his criminal history is “somewhat extensive, it largely reflects his struggles with addiction rather than a proclivity for violent or dangerous behavior.” Appellant's Br. p. 9. He also points to his decision to plead guilty and accept responsibility for his actions.

[10] As to Adkins's character, the evidence established that he has a substantial criminal history consisting of prior felony convictions for fraud, theft, battery by means of a deadly weapon, and possession of methamphetamine and prior misdemeanor convictions for domestic battery, battery, criminal recklessness, theft, and resisting law enforcement. He also has two prior convictions for the same offense for which he was sentenced in the present case. The evidence also revealed that Adkins had previously violated community supervision at least ten times in the past. Although Adkins focuses on aspects of his criminal history reflecting unresolved issues with substance abuse, his criminal history does contain crimes of violence. Additionally, his criminal history reflects that, on two other occasions, Adkins absconded from community supervision and committed the same offense of Level 6 felony failure to return to lawful detention. Further, he had multiple other violations of prior attempts at community supervision placements. Thus, Adkins has previously been given leniency in sentencing and failed to take advantage of those opportunities. And even though the trial court here sentenced him to two years executed, it also ordered him to be designated for Purposeful Incarceration and noted that the trial court would consider sentence modification once Adkins had completed Purposeful Incarceration/Recovery While Incarcerated. He was therefore given an opportunity for treatment while incarcerated and, once successfully completed, a chance to modify his sentence.

[11] Based on the facts in the record, Adkins has not shown that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-4(d).

Foley, Judge.

Bailey, J. and Bradford, J., concur.