LANDRUM v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Shane Landrum appeals his sentence for intimidation as a level 6 felony and claims his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On July 9, 2023, Landrum was on a phone call with his wife during which he threatened to kill her sister, K.Z.¹ The State charged Landrum with intimidation as a level 6 felony. In June 2025, Landrum pled guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement. In August 2025, the court held a sentencing hearing. Landrum expressed remorse for the words he used. He testified that K.Z. had given his eighteen-year-old son a gummy containing psychedelic mushrooms which made his son very sick. He testified, “[o]f course I was very upset” and “obviously I just fell into the trap, Your Honor.” Transcript Volume II at 14. He further testified that he lived with his wife and one of his sons in a house on ten acres, fostered dogs, and was currently caring for six dogs. He indicated that he and his wife own a business providing auditing services in the healthcare industry. He also testified that he started a business which inspects fire doors and that his two sons worked in the business. He testified that incarceration would be a hardship on his family and businesses. He stated that he had been on probation for over five years and never failed a urine analysis. Landrum's wife indicated that Landrum's incarceration would eliminate his ability to help with operating the businesses and also mentioned maintaining their property, her traveling every day to care for her mother, and the foster dogs including one with epilepsy.

[3] Landrum's counsel argued that any sentence ordered by the court “should be in home detention rather than work release but if [the court did] find that some work release is appropriate Judge we'd ask that you order him to serve six actual months in work release and then the remaining portion of that sentence in home detention or probation or a combination of those.” Id. at 28. The prosecutor argued that Landrum was on work release at the time of the offense and continued to minimize his offense and requested an executed sentence. The court found the aggravators included Landrum's criminal history and that he violated the terms of his probation or community corrections. It found the mitigators included that he has family which depends on his support, the hardship on his family, that he pled guilty, and that he expressed remorse. The court stated:

[D]uring your whole testimony you basically sought to minimize. What you said is it's not that big of a deal ․ When you threatened to kill someone when you're already in a correctional environment that's ․ not just hyperbole or sarcasm. I didn't even understand your explanation as to why you were upset. Something about one of your children being served mushrooms by, I guess this person you threatened to kill. The proper response to that Sir is to call the police. The proper response to that is to call the Department of Child Services ․ Not threatening to kill someone. Not threatening telling someone I'm scary. You may not have meant that but there's part of me that thinks that you did. I hesitate to return someone to community corrections that didn't do well on community corrections the first time.

Id. at 32. The court sentenced Landrum to 730 days with 547 days executed and 183 days suspended to probation.

Discussion

[4] Landrum argues the circumstances of his offense place it at the less serious end of conduct contemplated by the intimidation statute, no physical contact or weapon was involved, and the offense consisted entirely of a verbal statement made during an emotional moment rather than a sustained course of threatening behavior. He further argues that his character—specifically, his stable work history, strong family ties, clean supervision record, and lack of related criminal behavior—favors a substantially reduced sentence. He argues that his testimony “showed emotional distress triggered by learning that his son had unknowingly been given psychedelic mushrooms by [K.Z.]—conduct that would provoke any reasonable parent.” Appellant's Brief at 19.

[5] Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, [we find] that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Under this rule, the burden is on the defendant to persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7 provides that a person who commits a level 6 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between six months and two and one-half years with the advisory sentence being one year.

[6] Our review of the nature of the offense reveals that Landrum threatened to kill his wife's sister. Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Landrum pled guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement. The presentence investigation report (“PSI”) reveals that Landrum was convicted of possession of child pornography as a level 5 felony in 2020. The PSI states that Landrum was sentenced to 1,460 days with 1,458 days suspended, that following a probation violation the court ordered him to serve 730 days on work release through community corrections, and that the court later granted a motion to modify sentence and ordered that Landrum serve the final 120 days of his sentence on community corrections as an open placement. It states Landrum “was on probation and community corrections supervision when he committed the instant offense.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 51. At sentencing, Landrum expressed remorse and testified regarding his work and businesses, his property, the foster dogs, and the hardship on his family and businesses if he were incarcerated. We note the trial court's comments regarding Landrum minimizing his actions and that the court carefully considered his prior legal history, his remorse, his guilty plea, the support he provides his family, and the hardship caused by his incarceration. After due consideration, we conclude that Landrum has not sustained his burden of establishing that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

[7] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Landrum's sentence.

[8] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   According to the probable cause affidavit, Landrum stated: “I will kill your sister, I'll kill whoever else is there!” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 15. He stated, “You all should be worried,” “Yes, I am f---ing scary,” “You guys are all f---ed,” and “You had no reason to text [Landrum's son].” Id.

Brown, Judge.

Altice, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.