PRESTON v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Dalton Preston appeals the trial court's imposition of a twelve-year sentence after he pleaded guilty to Level 3 felony robbery.¹ He argues his sentence is inappropriate, particularly considering his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On September 20, 2022, Ronald and Marita McCulley were at home with the front door open but their glass storm door shut. While they were sitting in the living room, Preston and co-defendant Jacob Gates walked into the home with their faces covered by sweatshirts and wearing latex gloves. Preston was carrying a crowbar and told the McCulleys to stay put. Gates searched the home for cash and valuables while Preston stayed with the couple. The two men left on foot with a gaming console and purple controller, the McCulleys’ cell phones and wallets (including a Fifth Third debit card), and $125 in cash. The couple made a police report and after speaking with police, left to stay with a family member because they were shaken up and afraid.

[3] Police soon apprehended Preston, and he consented to a search. Preston had two cell phones with him; a gaming console and purple controller in his backpack; and a Walmart bag with a new laptop, Bluetooth speaker, $55 gaming gift card, and a receipt showing the items were purchased with a Fifth Third debit card. He had no debit card with him.

[4] The State charged Preston with Level 2 felony burglary, Level 3 felony robbery, and Class A misdemeanor theft. On March 24, 2024, Preston entered into an open plea agreement with the State under which he would plead guilty to robbery and his sentence would be capped at twelve years and served consecutively to his sentence under cause number 16C01-1905-F4-716, in which he was convicted of arson and burglary. Whether the sentence would be suspended or executed was left to the trial court's discretion. In exchange, the State would dismiss the other charges.

[5] The trial court accepted the plea, and on July 23, sentenced Preston to twelve years, with ten years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) and two years suspended to probation.²

Preston's sentence is not inappropriate.

[6] The Indiana Constitution authorizes this Court to review and revise a trial court's sentencing decision as provided by rule. Ind. Const. art. 7, § 6. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides we 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 principal role of appellate review is to leaven the outliers, not to achieve a perceived correct sentence in each case. Conley v. State, 183 N.E.3d 276, 288 (Ind. 2022). Therefore, “we reserve our 7(B) authority for exceptional cases.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 160 (Ind. 2019) (per curiam).

[7] “[S]entencing is principally a discretionary function in which the trial court's judgment should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008). “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). The two prongs of 7(B) review are “separate inquiries to ultimately be balanced in determining whether a sentence is inappropriate.” Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 126 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Conner v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)). “[T]o the extent the evidence on one prong militates against relief, a claim based on the other prong must be all the stronger to justify relief.” Id. at 127.

[8] The question “is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Helsley v. State, 43 N.E.3d 225, 228 (Ind. 2015) (quoting King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)) (emphasis omitted). Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate “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, 895 N.E.2d at 1224. The defendant bears the burden of persuading us a revised sentence is warranted. Cramer v. State, 240 N.E.3d 693, 698 (Ind. 2024).

[9] As to the nature of the offense, Preston pleaded guilty to robbery after breaking and entering a home armed with a crowbar and stealing items from the residents. While the facts of this case could have been worse, as the trial court noted, Preston's act of breaking and entering a residence exceeded the elements of the crime of robbery. Because he entered the McCulley residence, the couple suffered “emotional harm of knowing that their residence is no longer their place where they can feel safe.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 83.

[10] As to his character, Preston was adjudicated delinquent for burglary and theft in 2018. About nine months after completing his sanction in that case, Preston committed burglary and arson by breaking into and setting fire to a church. That case was waived out of juvenile court. For those offenses, the trial court committed Preston to the DOC, but after serving some time, he was released to probation. While on probation, Preston committed the instant offense. As the trial court summarized, Preston's criminal acts escalated from “entering a building or dwelling and taking something[,] to entering a building and damaging it extensively, to entering a residence and actually confronting people, threatening them and taking their property. So things have gotten worse.” Id. at 82–83. Preston's increasingly reckless behavior heightened the potential for harm to others and does not reflect well on his character.

[11] In arguing for a sentence revision, Preston notes he is an “exceptionally young man” who was nineteen years old at the time of the offense and only twenty-one when sentenced. Appellant's Br. at 4. He was exposed to drug and alcohol use at a very young age, which contributed to his criminal behavior. At the time of sentencing, Preston had been incarcerated for about two years serving his sentence in the arson case. At the hearing, several family members testified in support of him. He also introduced a letter he wrote to the trial court, an open letter asking for forgiveness, a letter from another inmate, and several workbook pages he completed and notes he made while reading self-help and spiritual books. He argues these show he has “demonstrated remorse for his prior life choices and demonstrated a desire to make real change.” Id. at 11.

[12] Preston's exhibits show evidence of self-reflection and acknowledgement of the negative role substance use has played in his young life. But far from taking responsibility for his offense, Preston explained he committed the offense while “so wasted” and the robbery was a “random act” he “had no control of.” Exhibit Vol. 3 at 7. He blamed his co-defendant, stating: “One minute I was idly following Gates and the next thing I knew he had pushed me inside of a house [and] closed the door.” Id. Yet he wore gloves and brought a crowbar from his father's house that day, and at one point told the police he and Gates actually set out to rob a gun store. Preston has not demonstrated “substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character,” especially in light of his escalating criminal behavior, to persuade us sentence modification is warranted. See Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122. Preston's twelve-year sentence is not inappropriate.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1(a) (2017).

2.   A Level 3 felony carries a sentencing range of three to sixteen years, with an advisory sentence of nine years. I.C. § 35-50-2-5(b) (2014). The trial court therefore imposed an above advisory, but below maximum, sentence.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Brown, J., concur.