WRIGHT v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Christopher Wright appeals his ten-year sentence after he pleaded guilty to Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine. Wright raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 19, 2023, officers at the Madison County Correctional Complex received a report that an inmate in dorm three was in possession of methamphetamine. Several officers entered the dorm and had the inmates first lay on their stomachs and then sit at a picnic table. The officers searched the inmates individually. Wright was one of those inmates and, when officers searched his person, they located two clear baggies in his underwear. Those baggies contained what later proved to be 5.32 grams of methamphetamine.

[3] The State charged Wright with Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine. In October, Wright pleaded guilty to that charge without the benefit of a plea agreement. The court scheduled Wright's sentencing hearing for March 2024, but Wright did not appear for that hearing. Accordingly, the trial court issued an arrest warrant.

[4] While that warrant was outstanding, the State charged Wright with five counts of Level 6 felony forgery, Level 3 felony possession of cocaine, Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine, and Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement across two cause numbers. Law enforcement officers eventually apprehended Wright.

[5] After his ensuing sentencing hearing here, the court found as follows:

the [c]ourt finds the criminal history to be a significant aggravator. Twelve (12) prior felony convictions, two (2) prior misdemeanor convictions, DOC commitments, five (5), and it looks like eleven (11) prior arrests[;] that's not including the violations of the sentences and it doesn't include the juvenile arrests that are also a[ ]part of the history. Also, the court supervision has recently been violated here while this case has been pending [and] a new offense has been committed which [is] now currently pending as well[,] and the repeat pattern of criminal thinking. As far as mitigation, the Defendant has plead[ed] guilty. Saved the State the time and expense of trial and has expressed remorse. The [c]ourt give[s] that remorse little weight ․

Tr. at 97-98. The court further noted that Wright had “engaged in one of the more elaborate rouses [sic] or patterns of deception to not appear in court” for his sentencing hearing, including falsifying apparent medical evidence to obtain continuances from the court. Id. at 98. The court then ordered Wright to serve ten years in the Department of Correction.

[6] This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Wright argues that his ten-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), we may modify a sentence that we find is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Making this determination “turns on our sense of 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.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008).

[8] Sentence modification under Rule 7(B), however, is reserved for “a rare and exceptional case.” Livingston v. State, 113 N.E.3d 611, 612 (Ind. 2018) (per curiam). Thus, when conducting this review, we generally defer to the sentence imposed by the trial court, and that deference will prevail unless the defendant demonstrates compelling evidence on appeal that portrays the nature of the offense and his character in a positive light, such as showing a lack of brutality in the offense or showing substantial virtuous character traits. Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[9] Wright pleaded guilty to Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine. A Level 4 felony conviction carries a sentence of two to twelve years, with an advisory term of six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5 (2022). The trial court here ordered Wright to serve ten years in the Department of Correction based on Wright's well-developed criminal history, his misrepresentations to the court to obtain continuances of his sentencing hearing, and his repeated failures at lesser placements. Indeed, he was in custody at the Madison County Correctional Complex when he committed the instant offense because he had violated the conditions of his home-detention in another cause.

[10] Wright asserts that his sentence is inappropriate because it “fails to address or provide” him “with services that could be beneficial for himself and the community upon his release.” Appellant's Br. at 9-10. He further asserts that the court “gave little weight” to his guilty plea and his remorse, and the court sentenced him more harshly than recommended by the State. Id. at 10. He also notes that “this offense ․ was not one of an egregious or shocking nature,” no one was harmed, and he had a “relatively small amount” of methamphetamine on him. Id.

[11] Wright's arguments on appeal simply seek to have our Court substitute its judgment for that of the trial court, which is not consistent with our deference to the trial court on sentencing matters. Wright proffers no compelling evidence that portrays the nature of the offense or his character in a positive light. We therefore affirm his sentence.

[12] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

Foley, J., and Felix, J., concur.