Stephanie Guevara, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After pleading guilty to Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, Stephanie Guevara was sentenced to 365 days in the Allen County Jail. Guevara challenges her sentence on appeal, arguing both that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing her and that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of her offense and her character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 12, 2024, Guevara and her boyfriend argued “about sex.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 13. As her boyfriend attempted to flee, Guevara tackled him and punched him several times in the head. The next day, the State charged Guevara with one count of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

[3] Guevara pled guilty on July 22, 2024. In exchange for her guilty plea, the State agreed that Guevara should be given the opportunity to participate in drug-court programming in lieu of incarceration. The trial court took Guevara's guilty plea under advisement pending her participation in the agreed upon drug-court programming. Guevara was unsuccessfully terminated from drug-court programming on January 27, 2025. On February 14, 2025, the trial court sentenced Guevara to 365 days of incarceration.

Discussion and Decision

[4] Guevara contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing her and that her sentence is inappropriate.

I. Abuse of Discretion

[5] Sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and we review only for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions drawn therefrom. We review for an abuse of discretion the court's finding of aggravators and mitigators to justify a sentence, but we cannot review the relative weight assigned to those factors. When reviewing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances identified by the trial court in its sentencing statement, we will remand only if the record does not support the reasons, or the sentencing statement omits reasons that are clearly supported by the record, and advanced for consideration, or the reasons given are improper as a matter of law.

Baumholser v. State, 62 N.E.3d 411, 416 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (internal citations and quotation omitted), trans. denied.

[6] In challenging her sentence, Guevara argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to enter a sentencing statement in which it articulated its reasons for imposing a 365-day sentence. However, “a trial court is not required to articulate and balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances before imposing sentence on a misdemeanor conviction.” Cuyler v. State, 798 N.E.2d 243, 246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. In Cuyler, we explained that “[a]lthough our felony statutes contain [an advisory] sentence that may be enhanced or reduced, our misdemeanor statutes do not establish [an advisory] sentence but only state the maximum allowable sentence.” Id. “Without [an advisory] sentence from which to start, trial courts have nothing to enhance or reduce.” Id.

[7] Indiana Code section 35-38-1-1.3 only requires a trial court to issue a statement of its reasons for selecting the sentence that it imposes when pronouncing a sentence for a felony conviction. The statute excludes misdemeanor sentencing by implication. Thus, the trial court here was not required to issue a statement articulating the reasons for its sentence or balancing any proffered aggravating and mitigating factors before imposing Guevara's sentence for her misdemeanor conviction. See Cuyler, 798 N.E.2d at 246 (providing that a trial court is not required to articulate and balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances before imposing a sentence following a misdemeanor conviction). The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion by failing to enter a sentencing statement articulating the reasons for its sentence or explaining why it did not find Guevara's guilty plea to be a significant mitigating factor when sentencing Guevara.

II. Appropriateness

[8] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “[t]he 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.” In analyzing such claims, we “concentrate less on comparing the facts of [the case at issue] to others, whether real or hypothetical, and more on focusing on the nature, extent, and depravity of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced, and what it reveals about the defendant's character.” Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (internal quotation omitted), trans. denied. The defendant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Sanchez v. State, 891 N.E.2d 174, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[9] Guevara pled guilty to Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and was sentenced to 365 days of incarceration. Indiana Code section 35-50-3-2 provides that “[a] person who commits a Class A misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than one (1) year[.]” Guevara argues that her 365-day sentence, while permitted by Indiana Code section 35-50-3-2, is inappropriate in light of the nature of her offense and her character. We disagree.

[10] Guevara battered her boyfriend during an argument about sex. Guevara did not allow the situation to de-escalate when her boyfriend attempted to flee. Instead, she chased after him, tackled him, and punched him in the head several times.

[11] As for her character, Guevara was granted the opportunity to avoid sentencing but failed to successfully complete drug-court programming. Further, while the full extent of Guevara's criminal history is not clear from the record before us, the record indicates that she has amassed at least one felony conviction and has been charged with other criminal offenses. Guevara's testimony at the sentencing hearing indicated that she suffers from substance-abuse issues and that her continued use of illegal substances resulted in her failure to successfully complete the offered drug-court programming. Finally, Guevara did not express remorse for her actions, suggesting that her decision to plead guilty was more of a pragmatic decision than an acceptance of responsibility or showing of remorse. See generally Reis v. State, 88 N.E.3d 1099, 1105 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (concluding that a defendant's sentence was not inappropriate with regards to the defendant's character when the defendant's decision to plead guilty had more likely been a pragmatic decision than an acceptance of responsibility or showing of remorse). Guevara has failed to convince us that her 365-day sentence is inappropriate.

[12] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Bradford, Judge.

Judges May and Mathias concur. May, J., and Mathias, J., concur.