ROBINSON v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] After breaking into a church, Robert Robinson stole a television and hundreds of dollars’ worth of tools. For this, he was charged with and later pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony burglary, Level 6 felony theft, and Level 6 felony institutional criminal mischief. The trial court sentenced Robinson to an aggregate term of 5 years in prison, which he claims is inappropriate in light of his character and the nature of the offenses. Because Robinson has an admittedly lengthy criminal history for similar crimes, and because he fails to demonstrate that the nature of his offenses warrants relief, we affirm.

Facts

[2] Late one evening in December 2024, police responded to a triggered security alarm at an Anderson church. When officers arrived, they noticed that a large window had been shattered. Police cleared the building and found no suspect inside.

[3] The church pastor arrived and noticed that a television and a handful of tools were missing. Police then reviewed the church's security footage, which had captured a person in a dark hooded sweatshirt, grey pants, and gloves throwing a rock through the church window. The individual then entered the church, walked into the room where the TV and tools were located, and soon exited.

[4] When police searched the area surrounding the church, they located Robinson, whose clothing matched that of the person on the security footage. When officers explained to Robinson that he was captured on the church's security cameras, he remarked: “I'm going to jail.” App. Vol. II, p. 62. Robinson then directed officers to the location of the stolen items. The television was in a dumpster, and the tools were beside a home where Robinson had attempted to sell them.

[5] Based on this incident, Robinson was charged with three felonies: Level 5 felony burglary, Level 6 felony theft, and Level 6 felony institutional criminal mischief. Robinson pleaded guilty to all three offenses without a plea agreement, though the State agreed to not seek a habitual offender enhancement in recognition of his plea. The court set the case for sentencing, released Robinson on bond, and ordered him to report to probation to complete a pre-sentencing interview.

[6] In the ensuing weeks, the court had to reschedule his sentencing hearing twice when Robinson failed to appear for his pre-sentencing interview. When the hearing finally occurred, Robinson again requested more time, claiming he needed to attend his sister's funeral. The court attempted to verify this information but could not confirm that Robinson was telling the truth. Robinson then switched course, requesting time to hire private counsel. He claimed he was coerced to plead guilty because the State had conveyed its intent to file a habitual offender enhancement in the absence of a plea. The court denied his continuance requests.

[7] At the hearing, the State presented evidence of Robinson's lengthy criminal record: 11 felonies, 13 misdemeanors, and multiple violations of probation. Based on the property damage, the State requested restitution of $3,200. In the presentence investigation report, Robinson also requested that the court “give [him] some treatment and give [him] a chance at probation.” Id. at 57. And at the disposition hearing, Robinson admitted ongoing drug use. When asked how he would test if screened, he responded that he would test “positive.” Tr., p. 27. And when asked “Positive for what?”, he answered, “Smoking,” then added, “I'm being honest.” Id. Robinson also apologized for his crimes. The court ultimately imposed an aggregate sentence of 5 years in the Indiana Department of Correction: concurrent terms of 5 years for the burglary, 25 months for the theft, and 25 months for the criminal mischief. Noting Robinson's limited financial means, the court did not impose restitution. Robinson now appeals his sentence as inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

Discussion and Decision

[8] Appellate Rule 7(B) authorizes an appellate court to 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.” App. R. 7(B). These two prongs are “separate inquiries to ultimately be balanced in determining whether a sentence is inappropriate.” Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 126 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Connor v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)). We give “substantial deference” to the trial court's sentencing decision, attempting only “to leaven the outliers” rather than “achieve a perceived ‘correct’ sentence.” Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014) (citations omitted).

[9] In assessing the appropriateness of a sentence, we first look to the statutory range established for that class of offense. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218. Burglary as a Level 5 felony carries a sentencing range of 1 to 6 years and an advisory sentence of 3 years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b). Thus, Robinson's 5-year sentence on this count is above the advisory but below the maximum. Robinson's two Level 6 felony convictions for theft and criminal mischief each carry a sentencing range of 6 months to 21/212 years, with an advisory sentence of 1 year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). Accordingly, his 25-month sentence for each is also above the advisory but below the maximum. The court ordered the three sentences to run concurrently, which minimized Robinson's total incarceration time. Given Robinson's character as demonstrated by his criminal history and the nature of his crimes, we are not persuaded that his sentence is inappropriate.

[10] Recognizing that his lengthy criminal record reflects poorly on his character, Robinson instead focuses his argument on the nature of his offenses. Though a defendant need not make a showing on each prong to warrant relief, the 7(B) analysis is a “holistic approach” under which each prong is considered and balanced. Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 127 (quoting Connor, 58 N.E.3d at 219). “[T]o 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.” Id. Here, the nature of Robinson's offenses does not overcome his admittedly poor character.

[11] Over the past 35 years, Robinson has amassed 24 total convictions—11 felonies and 13 misdemeanors—for offenses including theft, resisting law enforcement, burglary, possession of paraphernalia, and criminal trespass. See Moss v. State, 13 N.E.3d 440, 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (“Even a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendant's character.”). He has violated conditions of probation at least five times, and he committed the instant offenses while on probation. Additionally, while he was out on bond pending sentencing in this case, he failed to appear twice for his pre-sentencing interview. Robinson's poor record of compliance with the law and with court orders shows that he was not a good candidate for yet another attempt at probation.

[12] Nevertheless, Robinson emphasizes that the nature of his offenses was “no more egregious than other burglaries of non residential (sic) buildings.” Appellant's Br., p. 5. He highlights that he promptly told the police where the stolen items were located. But that cooperation only followed his realization that he was caught on camera committing the crime. Additionally, when committing the burglary, Robinson threw a large rock through the church window to gain entry, resulting in thousands of dollars of damage.

[13] Finally, Robinson claims that his sentence is longer than what was recommended by the prosecutor and the probation department. However, as he acknowledges, sentencing decisions are made by the trial judge alone. See Murphy v. State, 555 N.E.2d 127, 132 (Ind. 1990) (“A trial court is not obliged to follow the recommendation set out in a presentence report.”)

[14] Given these circumstances, Robinson has failed to show that the nature of his offenses overcomes his poor character, as demonstrated by his lengthy criminal record. Furthermore, Robinson's sentence already reflects leniency by the trial court, as the court ordered his three sentences to run concurrently and declined to impose the requested restitution. Because Robinson has failed to show that his 5-year total sentence is inappropriate, we affirm.

Weissmann, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Foley, J., concur.