Zechariah Scott Gwinn, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After pleading guilty to Level 6 felony residential entry, Zechariah Gwinn was sentenced to a term of two years of incarceration. Gwinn argues that his sentence is inappropriately harsh. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On February 23, 2026, the State charged Gwinn with Level 6 felony residential entry after he broke and entered his grandmother's home. Gwinn had previously lived with his grandmother, but she had kicked him out when he had failed to secure employment. At his initial hearing, Gwinn waived his right to counsel and pled guilty. On March 19, 2026, the trial court sentenced Gwinn to two years of incarceration.

Discussion and Decision

[3] Gwinn argues that his two-year sentence is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “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.” In analyzing such claims, we “concentrate less on comparing the facts of this case to others, whether real or hypothetical, and more on focusing on the nature, extent, and depravity of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced, and what it reveals about the defendant's character.” Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (internal quotation omitted), trans. denied. The defendant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Sanchez v. State, 891 N.E.2d 174, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[4] Gwinn pled guilty to Level 6 felony residential entry. “A person who commits a Level 6 felony ․ shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between six (6) months and two and one-half (2 1/212) years, with the advisory sentence being one (1) year.” Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). The trial court imposed a two-year sentence, which, while longer than the advisory, is below the maximum sentence Gwinn could have received.

[5] “The nature of the offense is found in the details and circumstances surrounding the offense and the defendant's participation therein.” Woodcock v. State, 163 N.E.3d 863, 878 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. To minimize the seriousness of his offense, Gwinn claims that he had only entered his grandmother's home to do his laundry, not to steal anything. The State, on the other hand, focuses on the fact that Gwinn took advantage of his grandmother while she was recovering from a heart attack. When speaking to police, Gwinn's grandmother made clear that he was “absolutely not allowed” in her home. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 14. Gwinn knew that he was not welcome in his grandmother's home and nevertheless chose to break in through her bedroom window. The nature of Gwinn's offense does not warrant a sentence reduction.

[6] “The character of the offender portion of the Rule 7(B) standard refers to general sentencing considerations and relevant aggravating and mitigating factors and permits a broader consideration of the defendant's character[.] A defendant's life and conduct are illustrative of his or her character.” Woodcock, 163 N.E.3d at 878 (citations and quotations omitted). “In examining a defendant's character, one relevant factor is his or her criminal history, the significance of which varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current offense.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). “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 v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

[7] The pre-sentence investigation report outlined Gwinn's admitted drug use dating back to his youth. As a juvenile, Gwinn acquired four delinquent adjudications and three probation violations. As an adult, Gwinn has accumulated multiple felony and misdemeanor convictions for various crimes, including criminal trespass, stalking, and public indecency, along with several probation violations. Although Gwinn's grandmother and the State advocated for probation and substance-abuse treatment, the trial court disagreed. Gwinn's continued criminal behavior indicates that he has not been deterred by his prior contacts with the criminal justice system. See Rutherford, 866 N.E.2d at 874. As evidence of his good character, Gwinn points only to the fact that he “accepted responsibility at the earliest opportunity he could[.]” Appellant's Br. p. 10. The trial court acknowledged this when it sentenced Gwinn but ultimately found that his criminal history “substantially outweigh[ed]” his acceptance of responsibility. Tr. Vol. II p. 27. Gwinn has failed to convince us that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character.

[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Bradford, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur.