Andrew J. Hartman, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Andrew J. Hartman (“Hartman”) pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury.¹ The trial court sentenced Hartman to four years with one year executed in the Indiana Department of Corrections (“the DOC”), another year executed on community corrections, and two years suspended to probation. Hartman appeals his sentence, arguing that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On August 31, 2025, around 9:00 p.m., Marshall County Police Department Officer Blake Bennett (“Officer Bennett”) responded to an accident involving two vehicles near King Road and 6B Road in Marshall County, Indiana. Lisa Rouch (“Rouch”) and her juvenile passenger were driving southbound on King Road when Hartman, driving northbound on King Road, collided head-on with Rouch's vehicle. Rouch told Officer Bennett that Hartman's vehicle was “swerving all over the road” and that she honked her horn to get Hartman's attention but could not avoid his vehicle as it came into her lane. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 13. Two other witnesses on the scene told law enforcement that Hartman's vehicle had been “swerving all over” the road leading up to the collision. Id. Rouch and her juvenile passenger suffered injuries as a result of the collision, including lacerations, a concussion, and pain.

[3] When Officer Bennett spoke to Hartman at the scene of the collision, he noticed an odor of alcohol coming from his breath and observed that Hartman had bloodshot and watery eyes, unsteady balance, and poor motor skills. Hartman told Officer Bennett that Rouch's headlights affected his visibility, causing him to collide with her vehicle. Hartman then told Officer Bennett that he had consumed alcohol before driving and subsequently failed the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test; due to a knee injury, he was not offered other field sobriety tests. Hartman provided a portable breath test with an Alcohol Concentration Equivalent of 0.049. Hartman consented to a chemical test, and Officer Bennett transported him to a medical center, where Hartman completed a SoToxa test that revealed Hartman tested positive for cocaine, methamphetamine/ecstasy, cannabis, and amphetamines. Subsequently, Hartman refused to submit to a chemical test.

[4] On September 11, 2025, the State charged Hartman with Level 5 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury. On November 20, 2025, Hartman entered into a written plea agreement under which he would plead guilty as charged and his sentence would be capped at four years but left the remainder of the sentence open to the court's discretion. On the same date, the trial court held a guilty plea and sentencing hearing. As a factual basis, Hartman specifically admitted that based on his consumption of alcohol prior to operating a vehicle, he was intoxicated while operating the vehicle, and that he got in a car accident with Rouch based on that level of intoxication that led to serious bodily injury to Rouch and her passenger. The trial court accepted Hartman's guilty plea.

[5] The presentence investigation report (“PSI”) revealed that Hartman, at sixty-seven years old, had multiple prior convictions. While in Iowa from 1993 to 1995, Hartman was convicted of misdemeanor assault, misdemeanor assault with intent for sexual abuse, and misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Hartman was also charged with misdemeanor operating while intoxicated in 2009, which was resolved by deferred judgment with one year of probation. In 2010 in Illinois, he also was convicted of a Class 4 felony unlawful possession of a controlled substance. The Indiana Risk Assessment Report placed Hartman in the overall “Low” Risk category to reoffend. Id. at 51. The PSI added that Hartman was raised by alcoholics after his mother's early death and that his wife had passed. The PSI noted that Hartman did not believe his alcohol intake was a problem and that he had not sought treatment for depression or substance abuse.

[6] The State argued for four years executed as allowed by the plea agreement, with one year at the Marshall County Jail and three years on community corrections. Hartman argued that the four-year cap should be reduced to three years executed on community corrections. Hartman argued for a combination of a direct placement with community corrections and probation. Hartman testified that if he were sent to jail, he would lose his apartment and be homeless upon completing his sentence.

[7] The trial court found as mitigating factors that Hartman had accepted responsibility and showed remorse for his offense. The trial court also found a slight mitigator in Hartman's lack of a criminal history over the past fifteen years. However, the trial court found the nature of the offense to be an aggravating factor in that he had prior operating while intoxicated convictions and got into a car accident while intoxicated that led to injuries to not just Rouch but also her juvenile passenger. The trial court also found his past criminal history that dated back to 1993 for crimes in multiple states to be an aggravating factor. The court concluded that the aggravators outweighed the mitigators and sentenced Hartman to four years, with one year executed in the DOC, one year as a direct placement on community corrections, and two years suspended to probation. Hartman now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Hartman argues that his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). 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).

[9] The question on appellate review is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate, not whether some other sentence would be more appropriate. Hambel v. State, 119 N.E.3d 1142, 1151 (Ind. Ct. App. 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 myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Corbally v. State, 5 N.E.3d 463, 471 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). We generally defer to the trial court's sentencing decision, since our principal role is to leaven the outliers rather than achieve a perceived correct sentence. Cornell v. State, 139 N.E.3d 1135, 1147 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).

[10] “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. (emphasis in original) (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. at 127.

[11] Here, Hartman was convicted of Level 5 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury. A person who commits a Level 5 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between one and six years, with the advisory sentence being three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b). The trial court sentenced Hartman to four years, with one year executed in the DOC, another year executed as a direct placement on community corrections, and two years suspended to probation.

[12] 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 1281, 1286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). Here, the nature of the offense is that Hartman consumed alcohol and multiple other controlled substances and chose to drive a vehicle. His vehicle crossed the centerline of the highway and struck another vehicle head-on, injuring Rouch and her juvenile passenger. To the extent Hartman addresses the nature of the offense, he appears to argue that while serious, the collision could have “resulted in something worse than the injuries to Rouch and her juvenile passenger.” Appellant's Br. p. 9. Here, Hartman elected to drink alcohol and ingest multiple controlled substances and then drove in an impaired state, weaving and then ultimately crossing into oncoming traffic and colliding with Rouch. The fact that Rouch and her passenger somehow avoided more serious injuries is not the result of any restraint or regard by Hartman, but simply a blessing to Rouch and her passenger, despite Hartman's conduct.

[13] “The character of the offender is found in what we learn of the offender's life and conduct.” Croy v. State, 953 N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Hartman contends that his character supports a revision of his sentence to one year of community corrections and three years suspended to probation. He points to his acceptance of responsibility, his low risk of reoffending, his age, and his difficult personal circumstances, such as the loss of his wife, in support of his contention. We must note, however, that the role of appellate review is not to determine whether a different sentence would be more appropriate, but to instead determine whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. Hambel, 119 N.E.3d at 1151.

[14] “A defendant's criminal history is one relevant factor in analyzing character, the significance of which varies based on the ‘gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current offense.’ ” Smoots v. State, 172 N.E.3d 1279, 1290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)). “Additionally, although a record of arrests by itself is not evidence of a defendant's criminal history, it is appropriate to consider such a record as a poor reflection on the defendant's character, because it may reveal that he or she has not been deterred even after having been subjected to the police authority of the State.” Rutherford, 866 N.E.2d at 874. Even a minor criminal history reflects poorly on a defendant's character. Pritcher v. State, 208 N.E.3d 656, 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023).

[15] Although Hartman characterizes his criminal history as limited, the PSI reveals three misdemeanor convictions and one felony conviction. Notably, the instant offense is Hartman's third arrest for operating while intoxicated, which indicates that he has not been deterred even after being subjected to the police authority of the State. See Rutherford, 866 N.E.2d at 874. His criminal history also includes misdemeanor convictions for assault with intent to sexually abuse, as well as a felony conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance. We also acknowledge that Hartman did not have any criminal convictions over the last fifteen years. Hartman attributes his substance abuse history as indicative of poor circumstances rather than poor character. Despite his significant and long struggle with alcohol and depression, Hartman has never sought treatment for either and that reflects poorly on his character. See Gillem v. State, 829 N.E.2d 598, 607 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (finding that the character of the offender supported an aggravated sentence where defendant had several prior convictions for driving under the influence (“DUI”) and did not seek treatment for alcohol abuse before his instant DUI offense).

[16] Hartman 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. We, therefore, conclude that Hartman has not shown that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 9-30-5-4(a)(3).

Foley, Judge.

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