SPARKS v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Paul Sparks appeals his sentence following his convictions for two counts of Level 6 felony operating a vehicle while his driving privileges were suspended and one count of Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine. Sparks raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether his four-year sentence, with six months suspended, is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On April 4, 2024, Decatur County Sheriff's Department Officer Logan Wilder observed a vehicle traveling sixty-eight miles per hour in a fifty-five-mile-per-hour zone. Officer Wilder initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle. Sparks was operating the vehicle, and he told Officer Wilder that he was returning home from work. Officer Wilder ran a check on Sparks's identification, which showed that Sparks was a habitual traffic offender with a ten-year restriction subject to conditional privileges. Those privileges permitted Sparks to drive to and from work but only along designated routes and at designated times; Sparks was not on such a route or at such a time. Thus, in case number 16D01-2404-F6-345 (“case 345”), the State charged Sparks with Level 6 felony operating a vehicle while his driving privileges were suspended as well as Class C infraction speeding.

[4] On July 16, and while case 345 was pending, Officer Wilder observed a silver Ford Explorer operating on southbound State Road 3. Officer Wilder checked the license plate number on the Ford Explorer and learned that that license plate “belonged on a 1987 Dodge Dakota” registered to Sparks. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 37. Officer Wilder initiated a traffic stop of the Explorer. Sparks was operating the vehicle, and, again, he was doing so outside of the parameters of his conditional privileges.

[5] Officer Wilder placed Sparks under arrest for illegally operating the Explorer. Officer Wilder then searched Sparks and located a glass smoking device with burnt residue in it in Sparks's shirt pocket. Also in his pocket was a “crystal substance” that Officer Wilder recognized to be “consistent with the appearance of methamphetamine.” Id. at 38. Sparks then admitted to having recently used methamphetamine. Accordingly, in case number 16D01-2407-F6-665 (“case 665”), the State charged Sparks with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony operating a vehicle while his driving privileges were suspended, Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, and Class C infraction operating a vehicle with a license plate that belonged to another vehicle.

[6] In October 2025, Sparks entered into a plea agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to Level 6 felony operating a vehicle while his driving privileges were suspended in case 345 and to Level 6 felony operating a vehicle while his driving privileges were suspended and Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine in case 665. In exchange for his plea, the State agreed to dismiss all other charges in those two cases.¹ The plea agreement left the sentences to be imposed for each offense open to the trial court, but it required the sentences within each case to run concurrently and the sentences between the two cases to be consecutive.

[7] The trial court accepted the plea agreement and held a sentencing hearing at which Sparks testified. Following the close of the evidence, the court found Sparks “to not be a credible witness.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 26. The court then found Sparks's “[s]ignificant prior criminal history,” and in particular his “multiple prior criminal offenses for [the] same” traffic offense, to be an aggravating factor. Id. at 27. The court found Sparks's guilty plea to entitle him to “some mitigating” weight, which the court diminished based on the length of time between the offenses and Sparks's guilty plea. Id. at 27-28.

[8] The court then sentenced Sparks to two years for each of his three Level 6 felony convictions. The court ordered Sparks's aggregate two-year sentence in case 665 to run consecutively to Sparks's two-year sentence in case 345, and the court suspended the final six months of Sparks's sentence in case 665. Thus, Sparks's total sentence is four years with six months suspended.

[9] This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[10] On appeal, Sparks argues that his sentence of four years with six months suspended is inappropriate. Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), we may modify a sentence that we find is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Making this determination “turns on our sense of 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.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008).

[11] However, sentence modification under Rule 7(B) is reserved for “a rare and exceptional case.” Livingston v. State, 113 N.E.3d 611, 612 (Ind. 2018) (per curiam). Thus, when conducting this review, we will defer to the sentence imposed by the trial court unless the defendant demonstrates compelling evidence that portrays the nature of the offenses and his character in a positive light, such as showing a lack of brutality in the offenses or showing substantial virtuous character traits. Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[12] The sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is six months to two-and-one-half years, with an advisory sentence of one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b) (2023). Thus, for two consecutive Level 6 felony convictions, Sparks faced a maximum possible sentence of five years. In ordering Sparks to serve four years with six months suspended, the trial court found Sparks's significant criminal history to be an aggravating factor but also gave Sparks some mitigating weight for his guilty plea.

[13] Sparks contends that his sentence is inappropriate because on both of the dates in question he was driving for “work purposes” and the instant driving offenses are “technical.” Appellant's Br. at 11-12. He also states that he is disabled, has various medical issues, and is “not a drug user”; the pipe and methamphetamine in his pocket were “from a worker who was not getting the job done,” and so Sparks confiscated the contraband from him and then “forgot” about it. Id. at 12. Sparks also notes that he is sixty-four years old and received a low risk assessment for recidivism.

[14] We are not persuaded. First, much of Sparks's argument relies on his testimony to the trial court. But the trial court found Sparks not credible, and we will not reconsider that assessment on appeal. As for the nature of the offenses, he violated his conditional driving privileges twice within a few months, with the second occasion being under questionable license-plate circumstances and while on pretrial release from the first occasion. Regarding his character, Sparks's criminal history speaks for itself. Further, Sparks has not presented us with any compelling evidence that portrays the nature of the offenses and his character in a positive light.

[15] Sparks's arguments on appeal simply seek to have our Court impose a different sentence than the sentence imposed by the trial court, which is contrary to our usual deference to trial courts on sentencing issues. We reject Sparks's arguments and affirm his sentence.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State had also alleged Sparks to be a habitual offender in case 345. However, at the sentencing hearing, the State informed the court that allegation was to be dismissed not pursuant to the plea agreement but due to insufficient evidence.

Mathias, Judge.

May, J., and Felix, J., concur.