CONWELL v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Tarron H. Conwell appeals his five-year sentence for Level 5 felony unlawful carrying of a handgun and Class A misdemeanor pointing a firearm, arguing it is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In July 2023, the State charged nineteen-year-old Conwell with Level 5 felony unlawful carrying of a handgun and Class A misdemeanor pointing a firearm based on a road-rage incident. During that incident, Conwell, who was prohibited from carrying a handgun due to his criminal history, exited his car at a four-way stop, approached the victim's car, called him a “Stupid Fa**ot,” and pointed a gun at him. Tr. Vol. II p. 18. A jury found Conwell guilty as charged.

[3] At sentencing, the trial court found eleven aggravators: (1) Conwell has an extensive juvenile history, including adjudications for eleven felonies and five misdemeanors; (2) as a juvenile, he was offered many opportunities for rehabilitation, but he did not take advantage of them; (3) Conwell has an extensive adult criminal history, including eight felony convictions and four misdemeanor convictions; (4) as an adult, he was offered pretrial supervision, probation, and the Continuum of Sanctions program, but he did not take advantage of them; (5) Conwell was on “some form of active reporting” when he committed the offenses in this case; (6) he started his involvement in the criminal-justice system at age nine and “has never looked back”; (7) the circumstances in this case “were escalated solely by [Conwell] who is a very angry[ ] young man who must find satisfaction in terrorizing others”; (8) he has engaged in “a pattern ․ of offenses against those in a position of authority,” as evidenced by his convictions for battery by bodily waste, disarming a law-enforcement officer, battery against a public-safety officer, and resisting law enforcement; (9) Conwell has “demonstrated over and over that he has no respect for the Court system based upon his behavior during trial and sentencing”; (10) his “criminal behavior is escalating,” and he needs “correctional treatment that can best be provided by” the Indiana Department of Correction; and (11) while incarcerated awaiting trial, Conwell “has shown that he is unable or unwilling to follow commands of those in authority similarly to the ones who were trying to arrest him” in this case, as evidenced by three incident reports at the Delaware County Jail. Appellant's App. Vol. II pp. 127-28; Tr. Vol. II p. 84. The court found five mitigators: (1) Conwell was twenty years old at the time of sentencing; (2) he has the support of some family and friends; (3) he suffered physical abuse from an uncle at age eleven; (4) he was twice found to be a CHINS; and (5) Conwell “has been diagnosed with Depression, Borderline Personality Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Attention Deficit Disorder and has been treated for such” from the age of eight to seventeen. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 128. Finding there was “no question” that the aggravators outweighed the mitigators, the trial court sentenced Conwell to five years for the Level 5 felony and one year for the Class A misdemeanor, to be served concurrently.¹ Tr. Vol. II p. 89.

[4] Conwell now appeals his sentence.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Conwell contends his five-year sentence is inappropriate and asks us to revise it to “no more than 3 years” under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Appellant's Br. p. 10. Rule 7(B) 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 5 felony is one to six years, with an advisory term of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b). The sentence for a Class A misdemeanor is up to one year. I.C. § 35-50-3-2. Here, the trial court sentenced Conwell to an above-advisory term of five years for the Level 5 felony and the maximum sentence for the Class A misdemeanor, to be served concurrently.

[7] On appeal, Conwell doesn't make an argument about how the nature of his offenses supports a downward revision in his sentence. Instead, he claims that his sentence is inappropriate based on “his age, and physical and mental conditions, as set forth in the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report.” Appellant's Br. p. 7. As for Conwell's physical conditions, including that he received “an injury to his head when he was grazed by a bullet during his arrest” in this case, id. at 9, Conwell makes no attempt to connect his physical conditions to the offenses in this case. As for Conwell's age and mental conditions, we agree with the trial court that they are mitigating. But given Conwell's juvenile and adult history as well as the other aggravators found by the trial court—none of which Conwell recognizes or challenges on appeal—he has failed to persuade us that his five-year sentence is inappropriate.

[8] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The trial court ordered Conwell's sentence in this case to be served consecutive to his 79-year sentence in Cause No. 18C01-2307-F1-9. There, Conwell was convicted of, among other things, two counts of attempted murder for shooting at officers when they came to arrest him for the offenses in this case.

Vaidik, Judge.

Bailey, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.