James M. Hann, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] James M. Hann (“Hann”), appeals, following his guilty plea, his sentence for Level 4 possession of methamphetamine.¹ Hann argues that his sentence is inappropriate. Concluding that Hann has failed to show that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm

Issue

Whether Hann's sentence is inappropriate.

Facts

[3] In October 2023, the State charged Hann with Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement in Cause Number 52D02-2310-F6-430 (“Cause 430”), and Hann posted bond in that cause. While Hann was still out on bond, the State charged Hann, in this cause, with two counts of Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, alleging that he had twice sold more than ten grams of methamphetamine to a confidential informant in January 2024. The State also charged Hann with two counts of Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine, alleging that he possessed between ten and twenty-eight grams of methamphetamine on two occasions in January 2024.

[4] On September 11, 2025, Hann entered into a plea agreement, wherein he pleaded guilty to one count of Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine in exchange for the State's dismissal of the remaining charges in this cause and the dismissal of his charge in Cause 430. Additionally, the parties agreed that sentencing would be determined by the trial court but that any sentence would be capped at six years. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the State dismissed the remaining charges and dismissed the charge in Cause 430. The trial court accepted the plea agreement and found Hann guilty of Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine.

[5] At the time of Hann's sentencing hearing, Hann was fifty-five years old. The presentence investigation report (“PSI”) revealed that Hann had a lengthy criminal history spanning multiple decades and that he was out on bond for a pending felony charge at the time he committed the present possession of methamphetamine offense. His criminal history reveals multiple prior felony convictions, including dealing in methamphetamine, obstruction of justice, theft, and operating a vehicle while intoxicated. In addition, Hann has multiple prior misdemeanor convictions, including repeated alcohol-related convictions for operating a vehicle while intoxicated and operating a vehicle with a BAC of .10 or more and repeated drug-related convictions for purchasing of ephedrine/pseudoephedrine and precursors. Further, he has multiple convictions for resisting law enforcement and has a history of probation violations and a probation revocation. Finally, the PSI indicates that Hann was in the Indiana Intensive Outpatient Program (“IOP”) in 2017 as part of his probation from his 2015 dealing in methamphetamine conviction. He initially regularly attended the program, but he then stopped attending treatment and probation appointments, leading to his probation being revoked.

[6] When sentencing Hann, the trial court found Hann's lengthy criminal history and his commission of the current offense while on bond to be aggravating circumstances. Additionally, the trial court noted Hann's previous revocation of probation for failure to continue attending treatment and probation appointments. The trial court found Hann's guilty plea to be a mitigating circumstance. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Hann to an advisory sentence of six (6) years, with four (4) years to be executed at the Department of Correction (“DOC”) and two (2) years to be executed on Community Corrections.

[7] Hann now appeals.

Decision

[8] Hann argues that his six-year sentence with four years executed in the DOC and two years on Community Corrections is inappropriate. We disagree.

[9] We may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). The defendant has the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). The principal role of a Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate 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.” Id. at 1224. “Appellate Rule 7(B) analysis is not to determine whether another sentence is more appropriate but rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012) (cleaned up), reh'g denied. Sentence modification under Rule 7(B) is reserved for a “rare and exceptional case.” Skeens v. State, 191 N.E.3d 916, 923 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (cleaned up).

[10] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge that the advisory sentence “is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. Hann pleaded guilty and was convicted of Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine. The sentencing range for a Level 4 felony is between two (2) and twelve (12) years, with the advisory sentence being six (6) years. I.C. § 35-50-2-5.5. The trial court imposed an advisory sentence of six (6) years with four (4) years executed at the DOC and two (2) years executed on Community Corrections.

[11] We first turn to the nature of Hann's offense. Hann knowingly or intentionally possessed methamphetamine weighing between ten and twenty-eight grams. In reviewing Hann's character, we note that “[a] defendant's life and conduct are illustrative of his or her character.” Morris v. State, 114 N.E.3d 531, 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. Here our review of the record reveals Hann's criminal history includes four felony convictions and eleven misdemeanor convictions. His criminal history started out with alcohol-related offenses, including multiple convictions for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and he then progressed to methamphetamine and drug-related offenses. Additionally, he has convictions for obstruction of justice, resisting law enforcement, and theft. Such a criminal history reflects poorly on Hann's character. See Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (explaining that any criminal history reflects poorly on a person's character).

[12] Further, our review of the record reveals a consistent theme of failing to comply with court orders, conditions of probation, conditions of bond, and commands of law enforcement. Additionally, Hann was out on bond when he committed the current offense. Moreover, Hann was offered opportunities to address his substance abuse issues while on probation and chose not to continue when no longer under the constraints of probation. Finally, Hann has violated probation in the past.

[13] After a full review of the record on appeal, we conclude that Hann has not persuaded us that his advisory six-year sentence for his Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine conviction is inappropriate. Therefore, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1.

Pyle, Judge.

May, J., and Scheele, J., concur.