NICKLESON v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Dalenna Diane Nickleson appeals the sentence the trial court imposed after she pleaded guilty to Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated in a manner endangering a person. She asks the Court to revise her sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Concluding that Nickleson has failed to demonstrate that her sentence requires revision, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] At eleven p.m. on November 15, 2024, Sergeant Nick Ernstes of the Hancock County Sheriff's Department was driving when he saw a sport utility vehicle parked in a traffic lane at an intersection of two county roads. The driver's door was open, and a person, later identified as Nickleson, was next to the vehicle. She was “stumbling and moving in a lethargic manner.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 14.

[3] Nickleson reentered her SUV and drove off but was quickly stopped by Sergeant Ernstes. When the sergeant spoke with her, he noticed an odor of alcoholic beverage emanating from her. Nickleson also had slurred speech and glassy eyes. Sergeant Ernstes saw a container of alcohol in Nickleson's vehicle. Nickleson performed several tests for intoxication and failed them all, but she denied drinking any alcohol.

[4] Sergeant Ernstes took Nickleson to a hospital, where she consented to a blood draw. A test of her blood showed a blood alcohol content of .17 grams per 100 milliliters.

[5] The State charged Nickleson with Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated in a manner endangering a person. On November 3, 2025, the parties appeared in court for a bench trial. Nickleson was tested for alcohol via a breathalyzer and registered a blood alcohol content of .074. The court found Nickleson in contempt, ordered her to serve seven days in the county jail, and rescheduled the bench trial for December 1.

[6] On December 1, the parties appeared as scheduled. Nickleson again tested positive for alcohol, but at a lower level (.025). Nickleson withdrew her not guilty plea and offered to plead guilty as charged without an agreement. The trial court accepted her plea and entered a sentence of 180 days, all executed. This appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Nickleson asks the Court to reduce her sentence to time served, claiming that her offense was not “egregious” and that she needs medical care outside of jail. Appellant's Br. p. 7. Article 7, section 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorizes this Court to review and revise sentences. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) implements this authority, stating that this Court may revise a sentence “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.”

[8] The primary role of appellate review under Rule 7(B) “is to leaven the outliers, not to achieve a perceived correct sentence in each case.” Crum v. State, 239 N.E.3d 858, 861 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). As a result, when conducting our review we do not ask “whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Woodcock v. State, 163 N.E.3d 863, 877 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. A grant of relief under Rule 7(B) is reserved “for exceptional cases.” Livingston v. State, 113 N.E.3d 611, 613 (Ind. 2018) (per curiam).

[9] We may look at any factors in the record when assessing the nature of the offense and character of the offender. Madden v. State, 162 N.E.3d 549, 563 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). “It is the defendant's burden on appeal to persuade us that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate.” Wheeler v. State, 95 N.E.3d 149, 160 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).

[10] At the time Nickleson committed Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated in a manner endangering a person, a person who committed that offense could be sentenced to a fixed term of not more than one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2 (1977). The trial court sentenced her to 180 days, all executed.

[11] “Our analysis of the ‘nature of the offense’ requires us to look at the nature, extent, heinousness, and brutality of the offense.” Dean v. State, 222 N.E.3d 976, 990 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied. Nickleson describes her offense as “run of the mill.” Appellant's Br. p. 7. We disagree because Nickleson displayed an unwillingness to cooperate with the police by denying having consumed any alcohol, despite displaying numerous obvious signs of intoxication. In addition, in her impaired state she had temporarily parked her vehicle in a lane of travel, posing a particular danger to herself and other drivers.

[12] Nickleson notes that she did not injure anyone, but the absence of physical harm is reflected in the charged offense. Had she injured anyone, she could have been charged with more severe offenses.

[13] Turning to Nickleson's character, our analysis “involves a broad consideration of a defendant's qualities, including the defendant's age, criminal history, background, past rehabilitative efforts, and remorse.” Dean, 222 N.E.3d at 990-91. Nickleson was thirty-six years old at sentencing. Her criminal history consists of two prior convictions for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, one in 2007 and one in 2009. Although Nickleson's prior convictions are relatively remote in time, it reflects poorly on her that she keeps committing the same type of offense.

[14] Nickleson argues that at the time of sentencing she was being treated for cirrhosis of the liver and may be in need of treatment that she cannot get in jail. Her argument is unsupported by evidence. In addition, the State notes that Nickleson twice appeared in court with alcohol in her system, to the extent that during one hearing the trial court found her in contempt and ordered her jailed for seven days. And Nickleson admitted that although she was under a doctor's care for cirrhosis while this case was pending, she had not sought treatment for alcohol addiction. The trial court stated, “I may actually be doing you more harm than good if I leave you out because you're just continuing to damage your liver further and further.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 13. Under these circumstances, Nickleson has not met her burden of proving that her sentence is an exceptional case that requires revision. See, e.g., Wolf v. State, 793 N.E.2d 328, 331 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (sentence for operating while intoxicated and related offenses not inappropriate; appellant argued no one was injured due to her offenses and that she needed treatment rather than incarceration).

Conclusion

[15] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

[16] Affirmed.

Robb, Senior Judge.

Brown, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.