JONES v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Lowell Jones appeals his seventeen-year sentence for dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug, a Level 2 felony, and dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug, a Level 3 felony. Jones argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and character. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.

Issue

[2] Jones raises one issue, which we restate as whether his seventeen-year sentence is inappropriate.

Facts

[3] On November 10, 2023, sixty-seven-year-old Jones sold 3.35 grams of crack cocaine to a confidential informant as part of a controlled buy. On November 28, 2023, Jones sold 5.79 grams of crack cocaine to the same confidential informant as part of another controlled buy. The State charged Jones with dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug, a Level 2 felony, and dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug, a Level 3 felony. After a bench trial, the trial court found Jones guilty as charged.

[4] The trial court found Jones’ extensive criminal history and the fact that past rehabilitation efforts had failed as aggravating factors. The trial court found Jones’ health and military service as minor mitigating factors. The trial court then sentenced Jones to concurrent terms of seventeen years in the Department of Correction on the Level 2 felony and nine years on the Level 3 felony. Jones now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Jones argues that his seventeen-year sentence is inappropriate. The Indiana Constitution authorizes independent appellate review and revision of sentences imposed by a trial court. Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 122 (Ind. 2024) (citing Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6). This authority, as implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), enables this Court to “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.” Deference to the trial court's sentence should prevail unless “overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense and the defendant's character.” Oberhansley v. State, 208 N.E.3d 1261, 1267 (Ind. 2023) (internal quotations omitted). A defendant, however, need not show that both the nature of the offense and his or her character warrant revision; however, “to 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.” Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 127 (citing Connor v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)).

[6] Additionally, in determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we are not limited to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances found by the trial court. Oberhansley, 208 N.E.3d at 1271. “Our role is primarily to leaven the outliers and identify guiding principles for sentencers, rather than to achieve the perceived correct result in each case.” Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 122 (internal quotations omitted). “Ultimately, we rely on our collective judgment as to the balance of all the relevant considerations involved, which include 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.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

[7] “In considering the nature of the offense we recognize the advisory sentence is the starting point the Legislature selected as appropriate for the crime committed.” Kelly v. State, 257 N.E.3d 782, 805 (Ind. 2025). Jones was found guilty of a Level 2 felony and a Level 3 felony. Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-4.5 provides: “A person who commits a Level 2 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between ten (10) and thirty (30) years, with the advisory sentence being seventeen and one-half (171/212) years.” Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-5 provides: “A person who commits a Level 3 felony (for a crime committed after June 30, 2014) shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between three (3) and sixteen (16) years, with the advisory sentence being nine (9) years.” The trial court sentenced Jones to concurrent terms of seventeen years in the Department of Correction on the Level 2 felony and nine years on the Level 3 felony. Accordingly, Jones received less than the advisory sentence on the Level 2 felony and received the advisory sentence on the Level 3 felony.

I. Nature of the Offense

[8] Our analysis of the “nature of the offense” requires us to look at the extent, brutality, and heinousness of the offense. Pritcher v. State, 208 N.E.3d 656, 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (citing Brown v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1, 5 (Ind. 2014)). “And given that sentencing ‘is principally a discretionary function in which the trial court's judgment should receive considerable deference[,]’ a trial court's sentencing decision will generally prevail ‘unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as [being] accompanied by restraint, regard and lack of brutality) and the defendant's character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).’ ” Konkle v. State, 253 N.E.3d 1068, 1093 (Ind. 2025) (quoting Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015)).

[9] Jones argues that his activity was not egregious or violent; he was not “standing on a street corner dealing drugs,” but merely “answered an old friend's phone call”; and “[n]o crime was committed until [the police] arranged for one to be committed.” Appellant's Br. p. 11. The evidence demonstrated that Jones twice sold crack cocaine to a confidential informant as part of controlled buys. Although we agree that there is nothing especially extraordinary about Jones’ offenses, we note that Jones received less than the advisory sentence on the Level 2 felony.

II. Character of the Offender

[10] Our analysis of the character of the offender involves a broad consideration of a defendant's qualities, including the defendant's age, criminal history, background, past rehabilitative efforts, and remorse. See Harris v. State, 165 N.E.3d 91, 100 (Ind. 2021); McCain v. State, 148 N.E.3d 977, 985 (Ind. 2020). The significance of a criminal history in assessing a defendant's character and an appropriate sentence varies based on the “gravity, nature and number of prior offenses as they relate to the current offense.” McElfresh v. State, 51 N.E.3d 103, 112 (Ind. 2016). “Even a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendant's character.” Prince v. State, 148 N.E.3d 1171, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).

[11] Jones argues that he is “an old man who is dependent on crack cocaine” and that he served in the military. Appellant's Br. p. 10. Jones was sixty-seven years old at the time of the offense and had amassed an extensive criminal history. Jones has previously been convicted of eight felonies and eighteen misdemeanors. His felonies include two prior convictions for dealing in cocaine. As the trial court noted, prior rehabilitative efforts have failed. Given Jones’ extensive criminal history, we cannot say that his seventeen-year sentence is inappropriate.

Conclusion

[12] Jones’ seventeen-year sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and Jones’ character. We affirm.

[13] Affirmed.

Tavitas, Chief Judge.

Weissmann, J., and Foley, J., concur.