Israel Dodd Richardson, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In November 2025, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Israel Dodd Richardson pled guilty to Level 5 felony resisting law enforcement, Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, and to being a habitual offender. Richardson appeals, arguing his twelve-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 13, 2025, Richardson was driving a Ford Mustang in Jennings County. After being informed by another officer that Richardson's license was suspended and that Richardson had active warrants, Jennings County Sheriff's Department Chief Deputy Cody Low attempted to initiate a traffic stop. Chief Deputy Low activated his siren, and Richardson accelerated and fled. Richardson had a passenger in the vehicle, who also had an active arrest warrant.

[3] A vehicle pursuit ensued, and other officers joined to assist Chief Deputy Low. Richardson sped down curved roads at speeds ranging “from 70 mile[s] an hour ․ [to] almost 130, like 123, 125” miles per hour. Tr. Vol. II p. 19. While maintaining high rates of speed, Richardson passed several vehicles across double yellow lines and over hill crests, creating “a very dangerous situation” for the officers and bystanders. Id. Another officer successfully deployed stop sticks, which deflated Richardson's passenger-side tires. Chief Deputy Low then performed a precision immobilization technique (PIT) maneuver. Richardson's vehicle spun out and rolled over, and the pursuit ended. Richardson and his passenger, who complained of wrist pain after the crash, were apprehended and taken to a hospital for treatment.

[4] Later that day, law enforcement obtained a search warrant for Richardson's residence. Upon execution of the warrant, police found drug paraphernalia, including glass smoking devices, syringes, and a scale. The residue on the paraphernalia field-tested positive for methamphetamine and crack cocaine.

[5] The State charged Richardson with Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement and Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine.¹ The State later amended the resisting law enforcement charge to a Level 5 felony and alleged Richardson was a habitual offender. On November 10, 2025, Richardson pled guilty to these charges and admitted he was a habitual offender.

[6] At sentencing, the court considered Richardson's presentence investigation (PSI) report and heard testimony from Chief Deputy Low, Richardson's mother, and Richardson. Richardson's mother explained that Richardson had a good childhood, influenced by several family members who were well regarded in their community. However, Richardson began abusing substances when he was about thirteen years old, after his father unexpectedly passed away from an anaphylactic reaction. When Richardson was an adult, his wife died in a car crash, and his brother unexpectedly died from a heart attack. Richardson testified that he used alcohol and hard drugs, including methamphetamine and opiates, as a way of “self-medicating [for his] whole life[.]” Id. at 43.

[7] Throughout his life, Richardson participated in several substance use treatment programs. While incarcerated and awaiting sentencing in this case, Richardson participated in counseling and the “Matrix” treatment program and attained fourteen months of sobriety. Id. at 49. He said that was his longest period of sobriety since he was thirteen years old. Richardson also apologized and acknowledged his “terrible thinking” in committing the instant offenses. Id. at 52. The court considered all this evidence as mitigating.

[8] However, the court also considered several aggravators. It observed that Richardson's juvenile history was the “most extensive” it had ever seen and that his criminal history was the “worst” it had ever seen. Id. at 60. In reviewing Richardson's PSI, the court counted thirty-two prior convictions, including seventeen felonies. The court noted “a lot of offenses related to fleeing, which always puts the public at risk,” and observed Richardson's disregard for the safety of himself and others. Id. Indeed, Richardson had been released from prison for a resisting by use of a vehicle conviction only eight months prior to committing the offenses in this case. The court thus found Richardson had not been deterred from reoffending.

[9] The court also acknowledged Richardson's family trauma and substance use disorder. However, it stated that Richardson needed to address the trauma at some point and that turning to substances was “never acceptable for 40 years” of one's life. Id. at 61. Richardson's criminal history included multiple alcohol-and substance-related convictions, all of which the court considered aggravating.

[10] The court ultimately found the aggravators outweighed the mitigators. It sentenced Richardson to six years for Level 5 felony resisting law enforcement and two-and-a-half years for Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, to be served concurrently, enhanced by six years for his habitual offender status. The court also ordered that Richardson could petition for modification of his aggregate twelve-year sentence after serving eight years, including good-time credit. Richardson appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[11] Richardson argues his twelve-year sentence is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) permits an appellate court to 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.” We give “considerable deference” to the trial court's sentencing decision and attempt only to “leaven the outliers” rather than achieve the “perceived ‘correct’ result” in every case. Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 122 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222, 1225 (Ind. 2008)). Indeed, Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) is a “rare” avenue for appellate relief that is reserved “for exceptional cases.” Livingston v. State, 113 N.E.3d 611, 612-13 (Ind. 2018) (per curiam). Our deference to the trial court prevails unless we are “overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense and the defendant's character.” Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 122 (internal quotations omitted). A defendant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).

[12] When reviewing whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge the advisory sentence is the starting point. Horns v. State, 218 N.E.3d 591, 595 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied. The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one to six years, with an advisory sentence of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 (2014). The range for a Level 6 felony is between six months and two-and-a-half years, with an advisory sentence of one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b) (2019).² For his habitual offender enhancement, Richardson faced between three and six additional years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (2023). Although the court sentenced Richardson to the maximum for each conviction and the enhancement, the court ordered Richardson's Level 5 and 6 felony sentences to run concurrently. Thus, Richardson's sentence is two-and-a-half years below the maximum aggregate sentence he faced.

[13] Richardson attempts to minimize the nature of his offense by noting that no bystanders were injured and that his passenger's injury was minor. Still, Richardson passed other drivers in no-passing zones on curvy, hilly roads and reached speeds approximating 125 miles per hour. He continued his flight and dangerous driving until law enforcement intervened by popping his tires and performing a PIT maneuver. Ultimately, regardless of the injury's severity, Richardson's passenger suffered pain from the crash caused by fleeing law enforcement. Richardson showed no restraint and no regard for his passenger, law enforcement, or other bystanders in committing this offense. See Sorenson v. State, 133 N.E.3d 717, 728 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (evidence portraying an offense in a positive light may include restraint, regard, and lack of brutality), trans. denied.

[14] Meanwhile, Richardson had multiple types of paraphernalia that contained methamphetamine residue in his possession at his residence. Richardson later admitted that drugs altered his decision-making and that they contributed to his “panic” on the day of the pursuit. Tr. Vol. II p. 45. Richardson has failed to point us to compelling evidence portraying either of his offenses in a positive light.

[15] Turning to his character, Richardson points to the same factors that the court found mitigating, including his family trauma and the sobriety he attained while incarcerated. Richardson's sobriety is commendable and was appropriately acknowledged by the trial court as a positive reflection on Richardson's character. However, Richardson's history demonstrates that he has a persistent and unaddressed involvement with illegal drugs. Richardson told the court that his substance use started when he was thirteen years old and included abuse of alcohol, marijuana, opiates, and methamphetamine. He has multiple substance-related convictions, including operating a vehicle while intoxicated, public intoxication, possession of methamphetamine, and dealing in methamphetamine. Richardson's lengthy history of substance abuse and prior inability to address the issue do not reflect positively on his character. See Vega v. State, 119 N.E.3d 193, 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (holding that a long history of substance use reflected poorly on a defendant's character).

[16] In addition, Richardson, who was fifty-four at the time of sentencing, has an extensive criminal history, consisting of thirty-two convictions, including seventeen felonies. As the trial court observed, Richardson's history shows he has not been deterred by his prior convictions, incarcerations, or the danger his conduct has posed to others. This also reflects poorly on his character.³ See Horns, 218 N.E.3d at 596.

[17] “We assess a sentence in light of the whole picture before us.” Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 127. Given the whole picture here, Richardson's sentence is not inappropriate. Thus, we affirm his sentence.

[18] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State also charged Richardson with Level 4 felony criminal confinement, Level 6 felony theft of law enforcement property, Level 6 felony possession of cocaine, Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, and an infraction for driving while suspended. These charges were later dismissed pursuant to Richardson's written plea agreement.

2.   The statute was amended in 2025 and 2026, but the sentencing range remains unchanged.

3.   Richardson also argues that “[u]sing criminal history in three ways to impose a twelve year sentence departs too far from the advisory sentence” and that his sentence is therefore an outlier. Appellant's Br. p. 19. However, as Richardson acknowledges, a trial court may consider a defendant's criminal history both as an aggravator and in support of a habitual offender enhancement. Pedraza v. State, 887 N.E.2d 77, 80 (Ind. 2008) (holding that “when a trial court uses the same criminal history as an aggravator and as support for a habitual offender finding, it does not constitute impermissible double enhancement of the offender's sentence”). The trial court's reliance on Richardson's criminal history was permissible, and we do not find his sentence to be an outlier.

Scheele, Judge.

May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.