Tyron White, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Tyron White was sentenced to an aggregate three-year term for his convictions of unlawful carrying of a handgun and resisting law enforcement. On appeal, he seeks reversal of the trial court's sentencing order and remand for resentencing. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On August 22, 2023, Officer Benjamin Shinneman was patrolling Calhoun Street in Fort Wayne when he observed White navigate his moped onto the sidewalk in violation of a city ordinance. In response, Officer Shinneman initiated a traffic stop. White refused to halt and pushed his moped toward the side of his house. It was then that Officer Shinneman noticed an outline of a Glock handgun in White's jacket.

[3] White continued around the side of the house and entered the house through the back door. Officer Shinneman drew his own weapon and again commanded White to stop. White still refused and exited the house through the front door. There, White was confronted by additional law enforcement officers who eventually handcuffed him and forcibly removed him from the scene. At the same time, White's brother exited the house with a Glock handgun in his possession, which was confiscated by Officer Gale Stelzer. During interrogation, White admitted to possessing the Glock handgun.

[4] Consequently, the State charged White with unlawful carrying of a handgun, a Level 5 felony, and resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor. Following a jury trial, White was found guilty on both counts. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent, advisory terms of three years on the felony count and one year on the misdemeanor count. White now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] White contends the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed the aggregate three-year sentence. Specifically, White argues “the trial court ignored mitigating factors” and, had it not done so, it would have imposed a lesser sentence. Appellant's Br. p. 7.

[6] “[S]entencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and are reviewed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (2007). “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 to be drawn therefrom.’ ” Id. (quoting K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind. 2006)).

[7] During sentencing, the trial court may consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Ind. Code § 35-38-1-7.1 (2024). The finding of mitigating factors is within the discretion of the trial court but is not mandatory. Page v. State, 878 N.E.2d 404, 408 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. “The trial court is not obligated to accept the defendant's arguments as to what constitutes a mitigating factor[,]” nor is it required to give proffered mitigators the same weight the defendant does. Id. “An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating factor requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.” Id.

[8] During his sentencing hearing, White proffered the following mitigating factors: (1) he had relatively minimal criminal history; (2) he had gainful employment lined up for post-sentencing; and (3) he had family support. In considering White's mitigators, the trial court noted his criminal history. As a juvenile, White accrued seven adjudications, four of which would have been felonies if he was an adult. And as an adult, White has a prior felony conviction and three misdemeanor convictions. Although the trial court considered White's mitigators, it ultimately found his criminal history to be an aggravator and unequivocally stated that it did not find any mitigating factors.

[9] In sum, the trial court did properly consider the mitigating factors and simply chose not to find them as such. We conclude the trial court's decision to not give substantial weight to White's mitigators was not an abuse of discretion. Moreover, on appeal, White has not established the factors were both significant and clearly supported by the record.

Conclusion

[10] The trial court did not err in failing to find White's proffered mitigating factors and thus did not abuse its discretion in imposing an aggregate three-year term.

[11] Affirmed.

Crone, Senior Judge.

Judges Vaidik and Pyle concur. Vaidik, J., and Pyle, J., concur.