Justin R.C. Peterson, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Justin R.C. Peterson appeals his sentence for conspiracy to commit burglary as a level 5 felony. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On or between April 12 and 13, 2025, Peterson agreed with “Shawn Isaac Cooper or Donovan Parker or Logan Walker” to commit burglary. Transcript Volume II at 28. Peterson or one or more of the others “broke and entered the building or structure of [Carolina Recycle Partners] with the intent to commit ․ a felony or theft.” Id. at 28-29. Extensive structural damage occurred.¹

[3] On April 17, 2025, the State charged Peterson with: Count I, burglary as a level 5 felony; Count II, conspiracy to commit burglary as a level 5 felony; Count III, theft as a class A misdemeanor; and Count IV, criminal mischief as a class A misdemeanor.

[4] On November 6, 2025, Peterson filed a Motion to Withdraw Former Plea of Not Guilty and Enter a Plea of Guilty which referenced a plea agreement and stated that Peterson would plead guilty to Count II, conspiracy to commit burglary as a level 5 felony, the sentence would be determined by the court and not exceed four years, the initial executed sentence would not exceed one and one-half years, and the remaining counts would be dismissed. The motion also indicated that Peterson would be ordered to pay $30,498.77 in restitution to Carolina Recycle Partners and $51,370.00 in restitution to WAFU, LLC, and that the restitution be joint and several with “State v. Logan E. Walker – 52D02-2504-F5-000118, State v. Donovan Parker – 52D02-2504-F5-000119, and State v. Shawn I. Cooper – 52D02-2504-F5-000120.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 108 (capitalization omitted). That same day, the court held a hearing and took the plea agreement under advisement.

[5] On November 18, 2025, Probation Officer Cathy Knight filed a presentence investigation report (“PSI”) which recommended that the court accept the proposed plea agreement and sentence Peterson to four years in the Department of Correction (“DOC”) with one and one-half years executed and two and one-half years suspended to probation. Officer Knight also recommended that the executed portion of the sentence be served as nine months incarcerated followed by nine months of home detention.

[6] On December 9, 2025, the court held a sentencing hearing. Defense counsel stated that the PSI recommended “nine months executed [in the DOC], nine months executed Community Corrections and two and a half years Probation” and “the Prosecutor I believe and ․ the Defense have agreed to that as a sentence.” Transcript Volume II at 34. After some discussion, the court asked Peterson if it was his understanding that the plea agreement “is being essentially slightly modified from what it says in writing here, in other words that you are agreeing ․ that the sentence under F5-117 would be four years [at the DOC], one and a half years of that time being executed ․ with nine months to be served ․ to be executed at the [DOC], nine months to uh home detention.” Id. at 35. Peterson answered affirmatively. After a recess, Peterson's counsel stated, “I guess we are going to argue the sentence that, as to how it's served.” Id. at 36. Peterson testified that the PSI recommended that he complete nine months in the DOC, nine months on home detention, and two and one-half years of probation. He indicated that he would like to “have all home detention” because he wanted to “do studies ․ to enlist into the military” and “participate in church.” Id. at 44. Defense counsel argued for home detention.

[7] The court found Peterson guilty of conspiracy to commit burglary as a level 5 felony and dismissed the remaining counts. The court also addressed the pending matter of cause number 52D02-2511-CM-790 (“Cause No. 790”), and Peterson pled guilty in that cause to theft as a class A misdemeanor related to the deprivation of property of McClure Oil Company.

[8] The court found the following aggravating factors: Peterson's criminal history; his arrest for a new offense while out on bond for the instant offense; and the harm, injury, loss, or damage suffered by the victim was significant and greater than the elements necessary to prove the commission of the offense. It found Peterson's guilty plea and his age of eighteen years as mitigating factors. It found that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors. The court sentenced Peterson to four years with one and one-half years executed and two and one-half years suspended to probation. It ordered that the executed portion of the sentence be served as nine months incarcerated followed by nine months served as a direct commitment to Community Corrections Home Detention. It ordered that, “[a]s special conditions of both Probation and home detention ․ he should be referred to mental health counseling at an agency approved by Miami County Probation” and that “as another condition ․ he should be restricted from the use or possession of alcohol.” Id. at 50. It also ordered that Peterson pay $30,498.77 in restitution to Carolina Recycle Partners and $51,370 in restitution to WAFU, LLC, and that the restitution be joint and several with the “State v. Justin Peterson – 52D02-2504-F5-117, State v. Logan E. Walker – 52D02-2504-F5-118, and State v. Shawn L. Cooper – 52D-02-2504-F5-120.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 111.

[9] After the court pronounced the sentence, Peterson stated, “I ․ regret my ․ actions especially my recent ones at the McClures and umm I'm sorry” and “I really need the mental help.” Transcript Volume II at 52. The court stated, “And I hope you get it Justin. Umm I mean you've certainly had opportunities in the past to get that treatment, right?” Id. Peterson answered, “Yeah uh and I have it, was a struggle when I was a juvenile because I was always focused on what the next thing that I was going to do was. But.” Id.

Discussion

[10] Peterson argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. He points out that he was in foster care after his biological parents voluntarily terminated their parental rights, his father was convicted of molesting him, and he has had mental health and substance abuse issues. He also argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied him the opportunity to serve his entire executed sentence on home detention.

[11] 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).

[12] Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 provides that 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.

[13] Our review of the nature of the offense reveals that on or between April 12 and 13, 2025, Peterson, who was born in 2007, agreed with Cooper, Parker or Walker to commit burglary and “they broke and entered the building or structure of [Carolina Recycle Partners] ․ with the intent to commit ․ a felony or theft.” Transcript Volume II at 28-29. Peterson or one or more of the others committed “the felony or overt acts in furtherance ․ that being break[ing] and entering the building or structure of [Carolina Recycle Partners] and or taking a radio from” Carolina Recycle Partners and extensive structural damage occurred. Id. at 29.

[14] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Peterson pled guilty to conspiracy to commit burglary as a level 5 felony and the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges of burglary as a level 5 felony, theft as a class A misdemeanor, and criminal mischief as a class A misdemeanor. The PSI indicates that Peterson's parents voluntarily terminated their parental rights and that his father was sentenced for charges relating to his molestation of Peterson. It states that Peterson was in several foster homes until his adoption in 2016.

[15] With respect to his mental health, Peterson reported that he had been diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder and depression during a six-month stay at Safe Passages where staff “thought he should go to DOC.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 58. He reported experiencing anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, sleep disturbance, long periods of fatigue, and feelings of hopelessness, and he denied having problems “with temper or anger.” Id. The PSI indicates that Peterson participated in counseling with a therapist through Benchmark Human Services while on juvenile probation and had a previous diagnosis of Reactive Attachment Disorder and Post Concussive Syndrome. Peterson “had individual therapy, family therapy, home-based case management, Sexually Abusive Youth treatment ․, medication management, school-based case management and wrap-around services.” Id. The PSI stated that Dr. Heather Holleman wrote that Peterson demonstrated very significant symptoms associated with antisocial personality disorder, appeared to be “treatment resistant,” and had exhausted outpatient treatment options through a variety of treatment. Id. at 59. She also expressed that residential treatment would likely not provide enough structure and stabilization for him and recommended residential treatment occur in “a locked facility.” Id.

[16] As for substance abuse, Peterson stated that he first used alcohol when he was six years old, he first used illegal drugs when he was eight years old, and his drug use became a regular activity when he was thirteen years old. He reported using marijuana daily and opiates three to four times per week. He recalled receiving substance abuse treatment for two months while on juvenile probation.

[17] The PSI indicates that the State alleged in June 2022 that Peterson committed an act that would constitute criminal mischief as a class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult, and he was placed on a ninety-day informal adjustment, which was “terminated unsuccessfully.” Id. at 54. Under a separate cause number, Peterson admitted to committing an act that would constitute criminal mischief as a class B misdemeanor in 2022 and was placed on supervised probation and home detention. In 2023, Peterson admitted to committing an act that would constitute possession of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult and was placed on home detention and ordered to participate in “a 30-60 day Diagnostic Evaluation or outpatient Psychological Evaluation; if a bed is not available.” Id. at 55. Peterson was later “terminated unsuccessfully from probation.” Id. In 2024, the State alleged that Peterson committed an act that would constitute theft as a class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult and a “[d]iversion program terminated unsuccessfully.” Id. That same year, the State alleged that Peterson committed a separate act that would constitute theft as a class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult, Peterson entered an admission, the court placed him on formal probation, and “[p]robation terminated unsuccessfully.” Id. at 56. As an adult, the State charged Peterson with the present offense as well as theft as a class A misdemeanor under Cause No. 790. The PSI states that Peterson “allegedly committed” the offense under Cause No. 790 while out on bond for the instant offense and the instant offense was committed approximately three days after his termination from probation under a separate cause number. Id. The PSI indicates that Peterson's overall risk assessment score using the Indiana risk assessment tool places him in the high risk to reoffend category.

[18] After due consideration, we conclude that Peterson has not sustained his burden of establishing that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.²

[19] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Peterson's sentence.

[20] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Defense counsel asked, “You agree with when the three of you were in there there was uh, industrial equipment run by you or others that was crashed into pillars and so forth that caused extensive structural damage?” Transcript Volume II at 29. Peterson answered, “Yes.” Id.

2.   To the extent Peterson argues the court abused its discretion by finding the harm, loss, or damage to the victim was significant and greater than the elements necessary to prove commission of the crime as an aggravator, we need not address this issue because we find that his 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), trans. denied. Even if we were to address Peterson's abuse of discretion argument, we would not find it persuasive in light of the record.

Brown, Judge.

Altice, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.