Jeremy Michael Hardy, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Jeremy Michael Hardy appeals his sentence for dealing in methamphetamine as a level 2 felony and other convictions. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On February 18, 2024, Vincennes Police Officer Jacklyn Wood observed Hardy fail to stop at a traffic signal and initiated a stop.¹ Upon approaching Hardy's vehicle, it was immediately apparent to Officer Wood that Hardy was impaired. Officer Wood conducted several field sobriety tests, each of which indicated Hardy was impaired, and Hardy agreed to submit to a blood draw. Officer Wood transported him to the hospital. At the hospital, Hardy told Officer Jacob Greentree that he had smoked methamphetamine that morning. A nurse advised Officer Greentree that, while taking Hardy's vitals, she saw him attempt to conceal a clear plastic bag in his pants, and Officer Greentree picked up the bag which he suspected contained methamphetamine. Hardy told Officer Greentree that the substance was methamphetamine and that “he had been distributing the methamphetamine prior to being stopped.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 28. Hardy “was medically cleared for jail, transported by Officer Greentree to Knox County Jail and booked in on the charges listed.” Id. at 29. “Shortly afterwards,” the hospital contacted the police “and advised that while cleaning ․ the room that was assigned to [Hardy], they located more bags with a white, crystalline substance inside.” Id. Officer Wood collected the “medium sized bag” from the hospital. Id. The substance was submitted to a field test kit which indicated a “positive preliminary result of the presence of methamphetamine, with the observed weight to be a combined total of 125 grams” and “[t]his weight also included the weight of the small plastic bags.” Id.

[3] On February 20, 2024, the State charged Hardy with: Count I, dealing in methamphetamine as a level 2 felony; Count II, possession of methamphetamine as a level 3 felony; Count III, operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a class C misdemeanor; Count IV, driving while suspended as a class A misdemeanor; and Count V, operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a level 6 felony. The State also alleged that Hardy was an habitual offender. The court set bail in the amount of $50,000 cash only. Hardy filed an application for release on recognizance or reduction of bail, and after a hearing the court denied his application. Hardy appealed, and this Court affirmed. Hardy v. State, No. 25A-CR-1035, 2025 WL 2828439, at *6 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2025). Hardy filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence and a Motion to Dismiss Habitual Offender Enhancement, and the trial court denied the motions. On November 3, 2025, Hardy pled guilty as charged without a plea agreement.

[4] On November 21, 2025, the court held a sentencing hearing at which Hardy represented himself. Vincennes Police Detective Kody Waggoner indicated that the total amount of methamphetamine left at the hospital by Hardy was 125 grams. He testified, “in these matters, [ ] typically what we find is [ ] that somebody in possession of this amount of a drug is not possessing that ․ with the intent to solely use the drug but to distribute it.” Transcript Volume II at 53. He testified that 125 grams “is a very good seizure in law enforcement terms of suspected methamphetamine,” “[w]e don't encounter that often, being a quarter pound,” “[i]n fact, in the 270 cases that I have worked I have seized north of a quarter pound maybe 8 times in the ․ 10 years I've been doing it.” Id. When asked, “[s]o this is in the top five to ten percent of the bigger cases [ ] as far as seizing methamphetamine,” he replied, “[a]bsolutely.” Id.

[5] On cross-examination of Detective Waggoner, Hardy stated “I was ․ asking to be a confidential informant” and “I was willing to work with you at that point,” and Detective Waggoner stated, “I would say that's correct but it doesn't exist in a vacuum.” Id. at 54. On redirect examination, when asked, “my understanding of using a confidential informant for lack of a better phrase would be using a little fish to go after a big fish,” Detective Waggoner stated “[t]hat is correct, typically,” and when asked, “[b]ased on your testimony today, would it seem [Hardy] was that big fish,” he answered, “[t]hat is my belief, yes.” Id. at 55-56. On re-cross examination, Detective Waggoner testified, “a typical user of methamphetamine is a half gram a day user,” “[s]o if a half gram a day, extrapolate that over 125 grams, we're talking 250 potential clients in a community that is just under 20,000 people,” and “[s]o I would say that, yes, percentage wise you would be considered a big fish for my area of responsibility, which is the city of Vincennes.” Id. at 57.

[6] Christina Payne, a peer recovery specialist with CFS Corporation, testified that she visited Hardy monthly in jail and that she observed genuine motivation and commitment towards change, he had consistently demonstrated accountability for his past actions and actively participated in his recovery process, and he had shown openness to learning new coping strategies and a willingness to engage in his own self-reflection, which are key indicators of someone ready to sustain long-term recovery. She testified that she knew Hardy through their mutual recovery community, she saw him flourish in sobriety, and he always contributed positively to those around him.

[7] The trial court found Hardy's criminal history and recent probation violation to be aggravating factors and his guilty plea to be a mitigating factor. The court sentenced Hardy to concurrent terms of twenty years on Count I, twelve years on Count II, one year on Count IV, and two years on Count V, enhanced his sentence on Count I by fourteen years for being an habitual offender, and found that Count III merged into Count V.

Discussion

[8] Hardy asserts that his aggregate sentence is inappropriate. With respect to the nature of the offenses, he argues that he “confessed to having made deliveries of the drugs,” he “was also a user of the drugs” and “under their effects at the time of the traffic stop,” “[t]he picture painted was one of a drug addict who was likely distributing as a means of supplying his own use,” and “[t]his could be contrasted with a dealer who engages in the trade for pecuniary gain.” Appellant's Brief at 11. As for his character, he asserts that he not only pled guilty, “but he confessed to the investigating officers at the time of the offense.” Id. at 12. He cites Payne's testimony and argues that “[t]he witnesses who testified for [him] stated many positive characteristics that did not make it into the Court's sentencing statement or order.” Id.

[9] Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, [we find] that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Under this rule, the burden is on the defendant to persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5 provides that 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 one-half years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 provides that the court shall sentence a person found to be an habitual offender to an additional fixed term that is between eight years and twenty years for a person convicted of a level 2 felony.

[10] Our review of the nature of the offenses reveals that, on February 18, 2024, Hardy possessed with the intent to deliver approximately 125 grams of a substance containing methamphetamine and operated a vehicle while intoxicated and while his driver's license was suspended. At the hospital, Hardy attempted to conceal a bag of methamphetamine in his pants, and he left another bag of methamphetamine in the hospital exam room. Hardy told Officer Greentree that he had smoked methamphetamine that morning, that the substance he attempted to conceal in his pants was methamphetamine, and that he had been distributing the methamphetamine prior to being stopped. Detective Waggoner testified that a person in possession of 125 grams of methamphetamine typically does not intend solely to use the drug but to distribute it, that he had seized that amount in approximately eight cases in ten years, and that he considered Hardy a “big fish.” Transcript Volume II at 55.

[11] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Hardy, who was born in September 1982, pled guilty without a plea agreement after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence. The presentence investigation report (“PSI”) stated that Hardy's prior criminal history consisted of twelve felonies and fifteen misdemeanors. Hardy's convictions included dealing in cocaine as a class D felony in 2004, theft as a class D felony in 2008, possession of marijuana as a class D felony in 2010, theft as a class D felony in 2012, receiving stolen auto parts as a class D felony in 2013, dealing in methamphetamine as a level 5 felony in 2015, invasion of privacy and operating a vehicle while intoxicated as level 6 felonies in 2021, domestic battery resulting in moderate bodily injury as a level 6 felony in 2022, and domestic battery and invasion of privacy as level 6 felonies in 2023. Hardy violated probation multiple times. The PSI further stated that Hardy had four pending cases. The PSI stated that Hardy was placed on supervised probation in 2015 to enter inpatient treatment at Lighthouse and that in 2021 he informed the court that he admitted himself into an inpatient rehabilitation facility.

[12] At sentencing, Hardy stated that he attended House of Victory in 2021 and became a homeowner. He stated that he “started using again and gambling” and that “the gambling addiction is the reason we're here today.” Id. at 69. Hardy presented witnesses who testified regarding his struggle with addiction. Hardy stated, “I worked really hard over the years to overcome obstacles that addiction can create and this new gambling addiction I entered into since moving into Vincennes has been the worst addiction yet,” and “I hope to work with the Samaritan Center and/or the House of Victory to extinguish all addictions and be the man God called me to be.” Id. at 98. The court noted that Hardy had a significant history of criminal behavior, including at least six petitions to revoke probation, he had recently violated probation, and he had been given multiple opportunities to address his substance abuse and addiction issues.

[13] The PSI indicates that Hardy's overall risk assessment score using the Indiana risk assessment tool places him in the high risk to reoffend category. After due consideration, we conclude that Hardy has not sustained his burden of establishing that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.²

[14] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Hardy's sentence.

[15] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Hardy cites the probable cause affidavit in his statement of facts.

2.   Hardy also argues the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him by failing to find significant mitigating factors supported by the record, namely, that he confessed to having made deliveries of the drugs, eliminating the State's need to develop evidence of an intent to deliver, his rehabilitation since the offenses, and his willingness to engage in further treatment. We need not address this issue because we find that Hardy's sentence is not inappropriate. See Chappell v. State, 966 N.E.2d 124, 134 n.10 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (noting that any error in failing to consider the defendant's guilty plea as a mitigating factor is harmless if the sentence is not inappropriate) (citing Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504, 507 (Ind. 2007) (holding that, in the absence of a proper sentencing order, Indiana appellate courts may either remand for resentencing or exercise their authority to review the sentence pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)), reh'g denied; Mendoza v. State, 869 N.E.2d 546, 556 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (noting that, “even if the trial court is found to have abused its discretion in the process it used to sentence the defendant, the error is harmless if the sentence imposed was not inappropriate”), trans. denied), trans. denied. Even if we were to address Hardy's abuse of discretion argument, we would not find it persuasive based on the record.

Brown, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.