GRIGSBY v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] While on probation, Rodgrell L. Grigsby was charged with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Grigsby pled guilty to the new offenses and admitted violating his probation as a result. The trial court sentenced him to two years in prison for the new offenses and ordered him to serve his six-year suspended sentence in prison for violating his probation. In this combined appeal, Grigsby challenges both sentencing determinations. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2016, Grigsby pled guilty to two counts of Level 3 felony robbery and was sentenced to 16 years, with 10 years to serve and 6 years suspended (with 3 years of probation). See Cause No. 02D04-1511-F3-70 (“F3-70”). Grigsby started probation in July 2024. Due to his ongoing drug use, Grigsby's probation was modified in March 2025, and he was ordered to complete a substance-abuse evaluation and comply with any recommendations.

[3] Two months later, in May 2025, the State petitioned to revoke Grigsby's probation, alleging that he failed to report to probation, did not comply with the substance-abuse-treatment recommendations, and admitted using methamphetamine and marijuana. The trial court issued a warrant for his arrest. When Grigsby was arrested on the warrant later that month, he was in possession of methamphetamine and a marijuana grinder. The State charged Grigsby with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia in Cause No. 02D06-2505-F6-790 (“F6-790”). The State also amended the petition to revoke Grigsby's probation in F3-70 to include the commission of the new offenses in F6-790.

[4] In October 2025, Grigsby pled guilty to Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia in F6-790 and admitted that by possessing the methamphetamine and paraphernalia he violated the terms of his probation in F3-70. The next month, the trial court held a combined sentencing hearing in F6-790 and dispositional hearing in F3-70. In F6-790, the court identified two aggravators: (1) Grigsby's criminal history, which consists of two felonies and four misdemeanors, and (2) his commission of the offenses while on probation. The court identified one mitigator: Grigsby pled guilty. Finding the aggravators to outweigh the mitigator, the trial court sentenced Grigsby to concurrent terms of two years for the Level 6 felony and 60 days for the misdemeanor in prison. In F3-70, the trial court ordered Grigsby to serve his six-year suspended sentence in prison. The court ordered the sentences in the two cause numbers to be served consecutively.

[5] Grigsby now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Grigsby has failed to persuade us that his sentence in F6-790 is inappropriate

[6] Grigsby contends that his two-year sentence in F6-790 is inappropriate and asks us to revise it under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that an appellate court “may 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.” The court's role under Rule 7(B) is to “leaven the outliers,” and “we reserve our 7(B) authority for exceptional cases.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 160 (Ind. 2019). “Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.” Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008)). Because we generally defer to the judgment of trial courts in sentencing matters, defendants must persuade us that their sentences are inappropriate. Schaaf v. State, 54 N.E.3d 1041, 1044-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

[7] The sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is six months to two-and-a-half years, with an advisory sentence of one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). The maximum sentence for a Class C misdemeanor is 60 days. I.C. § 35-50-3-4. Here, the trial court sentenced Grigsby to an above-advisory sentence of two years for the Level 6 felony and the maximum sentence of 60 days for the Class C misdemeanor, to be served concurrently.

[8] We agree with Grigsby that there is nothing remarkable about the nature of the offenses. But Grigsby's character supports his sentence. Grigsby has two felony convictions and four misdemeanor convictions and was on probation when he committed these offenses. Grigsby claims that he “expressed a need for substance abuse treatment.” Appellant's Br. p. 7. But as explained above, he was given that opportunity when his probation was modified in March 2025. Grigsby has failed to persuade us that his sentence in F6-790 is inappropriate.

II. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Grigsby to serve his suspended sentence in F3-70 for violating his probation

[9] Grigsby also contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to serve his six-year suspended sentence in F3-70 for violating his probation. Trial courts enjoy broad discretion in determining the appropriate sanction for probation violations, and we review only for an abuse of that discretion. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007).

[10] Grigsby “acknowledges that committing a new criminal offense while on probation is significant” but claims that it does not “warrant a full revocation” here. Appellant's Br. p. 9. We disagree. After serving significant time in prison for two counts of Level 3 felony robbery, Grigsby was released to probation. His probation was then modified to include substance-abuse evaluation and treatment. Two months later, Grigsby was arrested for possessing methamphetamine and paraphernalia. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Grigsby to serve his six-year suspended sentence for violating his probation. See Sieg v. State, 271 N.E.3d 620, 625 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (“We have repeatedly ruled that it is not an abuse of discretion to order execution of the entire suspended sentence when a defendant commits a new criminal offense while on probation.”).

[11] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Altice, J., and Foley, J., concur.