MCNEW v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Cody J. McNew (“McNew”) pleaded guilty to dealing in methamphetamine ¹ as a Level 2 felony and was sentenced to twenty years executed. McNew appeals and raises the following issue for our review: whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In June and July 2024, police arranged controlled buys of methamphetamine in Putnam County, Indiana, using a confidential informant (“CI”). The CI arranged to purchase methamphetamine from McNew on two separate occasions. McNew sold a total of more than twenty-eight grams of methamphetamine to the CI between the two controlled buys. As a result of these controlled buys, the State ultimately charged McNew with Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 3 felony dealing in methamphetamine, and Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine. The state also alleged that McNew was a habitual offender.

[3] On August 27, 2025, McNew signed a plea agreement under which he agreed to plead guilty to Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, and in exchange, the State agreed to dismiss all the other charges and the habitual offender enhancement. Additionally, the State agreed to dismiss a charge in a separate case and a probation violation in another case. The plea agreement left sentencing open to the trial court's discretion with a total sentence not to exceed twenty years and did not prohibit sentencing challenges on appeal. On September 10, 2025, McNew entered his guilty plea pursuant to the agreement, which the trial court accepted.

[4] The trial court proceeded to sentencing on the same date, as a presentence investigation report (“PSI”) had previously been ordered. During sentencing, evidence was presented that McNew had an extensive criminal history. His contact with the criminal justice system began when he was a juvenile and continued through his adult life. As an adult, McNew has six prior misdemeanor convictions and ten prior felony convictions. Many of McNew's prior convictions involved controlled substances, including convictions for possession of methamphetamine in 2013 and 2022, unlawful possession of a syringe in 2013 and 2016, possession of a narcotic drug in 2021 and 2023, and possession of marijuana in 2007 and 2015. McNew also has prior convictions for Class C felony battery, nonsupport of a dependent child, unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, theft, criminal trespass, conversion, driving while suspended, and operating while intoxicated and has been previously found to be a habitual offender. He has had numerous violations of probation and community corrections filed against him in multiple cases with many of these resulting in the revocation of his probation.

[5] In his PSI, McNew admitted to beginning consuming marijuana at age thirteen and alcohol at age fourteen and continuing to use both until his arrest. He began using heroin, methamphetamine, and pain pills at the age of fourteen and stated that heroin is his drug of choice. He reported smoking marijuana daily since he was a teenager and using methamphetamine and heroin daily since the age of twenty. McNew stated he had previously attended drug rehabilitation for a short period of time in 2013 but never returned. McNew reported that he was previously a member of a prison gang while incarcerated. McNew was evaluated as being at a very high risk to reoffend. McNew told the probation officer that he would not do well on probation because it was “not enough of a deterrent to keep him out of the [c]riminal [j]ustice [s]ystem.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 70. McNew had been assessed as ineligible for home detention or work release in Putnam County.

[6] The trial court sentenced McNew to twenty years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”) with the possibility of serving the last two years on home detention or work release if he becomes eligible. The trial court also recommended McNew for the Purposeful Incarceration Program and stated it would consider a sentence modification if McNew successfully completed the program. McNew now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] McNew contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. The Indiana Constitution authorizes appellate review and revision of a trial court's sentencing decision. See Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6; Jackson v. State, 145 N.E.3d 783, 784 (Ind. 2020). “That authority is implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), which permits an appellate court to revise a sentence if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the sentence is found to be inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 159 (Ind. 2019).

[8] Our review under Appellate Rule 7(B) focuses on “the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). We generally defer to the trial court's sentencing decision, and our goal is to determine whether the defendant's sentence is inappropriate, not whether some other sentence would be more appropriate. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). “Such deference should prevail unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant's character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). The two prongs of Appellate Rule 7(B) 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) (citing Connor v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)). “Reviewing courts ‘must consider’ both factors, but the defendant need not ‘necessarily prove’ that the sentence is inappropriate on both counts.” Id. (emphases in original) (quoting Connor, 58 N.E.3d at 219).

[9] McNew was convicted of Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine. A person who commits a Level 2 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between ten and thirty years, with the advisory sentence being seventeen and a half years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5. Here, McNew pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that capped his sentence at twenty years, and the trial court imposed a twenty-year executed sentence in accordance with the plea agreement. “[A] defendant's conscious choice to enter a plea agreement that limits the trial court's discretion to a sentence less than the statutory maximum should usually be understood as strong and persuasive evidence of sentence reasonableness and appropriateness.” Merriweather v. State, 151 N.E.3d 1281, 1286 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1081 (Ind. 2006) (Dickson, J., concurring)). Further, the trial court stated that the final two years of McNew's sentence could be served on either home detention or work release if he were found eligible, and the trial court indicated that it would consider a sentence modification if McNew successfully completed the Purposeful Incarceration Program.

[10] When reviewing the nature of the offense, this court considers “the details and circumstances of the commission of the offense.” Merriweather v. State, 151 N.E.3d at 1286. Beyond stating that it is unclear in what amounts of methamphetamine McNew dealt on each occasion, but not challenging the total amount dealt, McNew raises no assertion as to why his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense. Here, the evidence established that over the course of two separate transactions, McNew sold methamphetamine to a CI in an aggregate amount of over twenty-eight grams. McNew's actions of dealing methamphetamine on at least two different occasions demonstrates that his actions were not just a one-time occurrence, and he admitted in his PSI that his decision to deal methamphetamine was due to his heroin problem. McNew has not demonstrated compelling evidence, such as restraint, regard, or lack of brutality, portraying the nature of his offense in a positive light. See Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122.

[11] When we look to a defendant's character, we engage in “a broad analysis of the defendant's ‘qualities, life, and conduct.’ ” Cramer v. State, 240 N.E.3d 693, 699 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Crabtree v. State, 152 N.E.3d 687, 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied). McNew argues that his sentence is inappropriate based on his character because, although he has a lengthy criminal history, most of it is drug related, and he would likely “respond affirmatively to the rehabilitative efforts of probation.” Appellant's Br. p. 10. He also points to “positive strides in his life prior to these charges,” specifically that he owned his own company renovating homes, had earned his GED and a business management degree while previously incarcerated, worked as a trustee in the jail while awaiting trial for his current charges, and completed a recovery program while incarcerated pretrial. Id.

[12] As to McNew's character, the evidence presented at sentencing revealed that he has an extensive criminal history beginning with juvenile adjudications and consisting of six prior misdemeanor convictions and ten prior felony convictions. McNew, who was thirty-six at the time of sentencing, had his first contact with the criminal justice system when he was fourteen years old and continued committing offenses for over twenty years until the present charges. He has past convictions for driving while suspended, possession of marijuana, criminal trespass, conversion, operating a vehicle while intoxicated, nonsupport of a dependent, theft, Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and Class C felony battery in addition to multiple convictions for possession of a narcotic drug, unlawful possession of a syringe, and possession of methamphetamine. McNew has also previously been adjudicated a habitual offender. Further, the PSI revealed that McNew repeatedly violated prior terms of probation when previously granted such grace by the trial court. In fact, when interviewed for his PSI, McNew told the probation officer that he thought “probation is not enough of a deterrent to keep him out of the [c]riminal [j]ustice [s]ystem.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 70. Therefore, contrary to his assertion, the evidence does not support that he would respond affirmatively to a term of probation. The evidence also established that McNew has a long-standing substance abuse problem, and his heroin use is what led him to deal the methamphetamine in the present case.

[13] McNew has not demonstrated compelling evidence, such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character, portraying his character in a positive light such that his sentence should be revised. Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122. While McNew's recent positive strides in owning his own company, earning degrees, working as a trustee in jail, and completing a recovery program while incarcerated are commendable, the evidence of his extensive criminal history and failure to maintain a law-abiding lifestyle do not reflect positively on his character such that a revision of his sentence is warranted. We, therefore, conclude that McNew has not shown that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character. This is especially true where the trial court stated that the last two years of his sentence could be served in home detention or work release if he were deemed eligible and that the trial court would consider sentence modification if McNew completed the Purposeful Incarceration Program.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(a)(1), (e)(1).

Foley, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J. and Weissmann, J., concur.