II v. State of Indiana Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Steven Wayne Calvert II (“Calvert”), appeals, following his guilty plea, his sentence for Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine.¹ Calvert argues that his sentence is inappropriate because the trial court ordered him to serve the executed portion of his sentence at the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) instead of in community corrections. Concluding that Calvert has failed to show that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether Calvert's sentence is inappropriate.

Facts

[3] On September 11, 2023, a Knightstown Police officer pulled Calvert over for a traffic violation. During the traffic stop and subsequent search, the officer found that Calvert had thirteen grams of methamphetamine. The State charged Calvert with: (1) Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine; (2) Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement; and (3) Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

[4] In August 2024, Calvert entered into a plea agreement, in which he agreed to plead guilty to a lesser included offense of Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine in exchange for the State's dismissal of the remaining charges. The parties also agreed that sentencing would be left to the trial court's discretion.

[5] At the time of Calvert's sentencing hearing, Calvert was forty-nine years old. The presentence investigation report (“PSI”) revealed that Calvert had a criminal history, which consisted of a felony conviction for burglary and misdemeanor convictions for theft, domestic battery, and driving a vehicle while intoxicated. Calvert told the trial court that he had the thirteen grams of methamphetamine because it was a “convenience” and that he “didn't want to go back to Indianapolis to get anymore.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 28). Calvert also stated that he had not used any illegal drugs since his arrest. Calvert asked the trial court to put him on home detention in community corrections.

[6] The trial court did not find any mitigating circumstances. The trial court found Calvert's criminal history to be an aggravating circumstance. The trial court noted that Calvert's prior encounters with the criminal justice system—which had resulted in the imposition of fines and costs, placement on probation, placement on home detention, placement in community corrections, and short-term incarceration—had not deterred Calvert from engaging in further criminal behavior. Additionally, the trial court was not persuaded by Calvert's “convenience” argument to downplay his possession of a large amount of methamphetamine, and the trial court noted that it had “never heard that one before.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 46). The trial court imposed an advisory sentence of six (6) years with four (4) years executed in the DOC and two (2) years suspended to probation.

[7] Calvert now appeals.

Decision

[8] Calvert acknowledges that the length of his sentence “was an appropriate sentence.” (Calvert's Br. 8). On appeal, Calvert contends that his sentence is inappropriate because the trial court ordered him to serve his executed sentence at the DOC instead of in community corrections. We disagree.

[9] We may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). The defendant has the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). The principal role of a Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). “Appellate Rule 7(B) analysis is not to determine whether another sentence is more appropriate but rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), reh'g denied.

[10] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge that the advisory sentence “is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. Calvert pleaded guilty and was convicted of Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine. A person who commits a Level 4 felony “shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two (2) and twelve (12) years, with the advisory sentence being six (6) years.” I.C. § 35-50-2-5.5. The trial court imposed an advisory six (6) year sentence with four (4) years executed in the DOC and two (2) years suspended to probation.

[11] The location where a sentence is to be served is an appropriate focus for our review and revise authority under Appellate Rule 7(B). Biddinger v. State, 868 N.E.2d 407, 414 (Ind. 2007). However, “it will be quite difficult for a defendant to prevail on a claim that the placement of his or her sentence is inappropriate.” Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Indeed, “the question under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Id. at 344 (emphasis in original). “A defendant challenging the placement of a sentence must convince us that the given placement is itself inappropriate.” Id.

[12] We first turn to the nature of Calvert's offense. The police pulled over Calvert for a traffic stop and ultimately discovered that he had thirteen grams of methamphetamine. Calvert pleaded guilty to the lesser include offense of Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine. Calvert tries to downplay his possession of the large quantity of methamphetamine and asserts that there was “nothing particularly egregious” about his offense because “it was all for [his] personal use because he [had] purchased it in bulk to avoid having to make repeated trips.” (Calvert's Br. 7). The trial court was not persuaded by Calvert's convenience argument to downplay the nature of his offense, and neither are we.

[13] In reviewing Calvert's character, we note that “[a] defendant's life and conduct are illustrative of his or her character.” Morris v. State, 114 N.E.3d 531, 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. The PSI showed that Calvert's criminal history included a felony burglary conviction and misdemeanor convictions for theft, domestic battery, and operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Such criminal history reflects poorly on Calvert's character. See Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (explaining that any criminal history reflects poorly on a person's character). For these prior convictions, Calvert had been placed on probation, home detention, community corrections, or short-term incarceration. However, as the trial court noted, these prior encounters with the criminal justice system and leniency did not stop Calvert from reoffending and committing his current possession of methamphetamine offense.

[14] After a full review of the record on appeal, we conclude that Calvert has not persuaded us that the placement for his sentence for his Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine conviction is inappropriate. Therefore, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

[15] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1.

Pyle, Judge.

Judges Bradford and Kenworthy concur. Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.