Jeffrey B. Flora, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Jeffrey B. Flora appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony; resisting law enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor; and criminal trespass, as a Class A misdemeanor. Flora raises one issue for our review, namely, whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 4, 2026, an officer with the Fort Wayne Police Department responded to a report of an “[u]nwanted [p]arty.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 16.¹ When the officer arrived, he found Flora “sleeping in the stairwell under the stairs.” Id. The officer approached Flora, “lightly shook him,” and “advis[ed] him that he needed to leave[.]” Id. Flora “refused” and “swatt[ed] his arm.” Id. The officer shook Flora again, identified himself as police, and again told Flora that he needed to leave. Flora looked at the officer and said “f**k the police[.]” Id. Flora then repeated “f**k the police” a second time “while swatting his arm with more force than he did the first time.” Id.

[3] The officer then “grabbed hold of [Flora's] jacket near his shoulder” and began to pull him from under the stairs. Id. Flora “physically resisted” by “tensing his arms with great force and pulling them in close under his body[.]” Id. The officer was ultimately able to place Flora in handcuffs. Flora then admitted that he had “meth” in his pocket. Id. During a search incident to arrest, the officer found a red baggie that contained 8.3 grams of methamphetamine.

[4] The State charged Flora with possession of methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony; resisting law enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor; and criminal trespass, as a Class A misdemeanor.² Flora pleaded guilty as charged in an open plea. Following a sentencing hearing, the court accepted the guilty plea and entered judgment of conviction accordingly. The court then found as aggravating factors Flora's criminal history and that prior efforts at rehabilitation had failed. In particular, the court stated: “And say terrible things have happened to you. Yet, you've done terrible things to other people. Terrible things to other people. You have a terrible criminal history[.]” Tr. at 28. In mitigation, the court found that Flora had accepted responsibility by pleading guilty. The court then found that the aggravators outweighed the mitigators and sentenced Flora to concurrent terms of five years on the Level 5 felony and 183 days on each of the Class A misdemeanors. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Flora asserts that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “[t]he Court 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.” This Court has held that “[t]he advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. And the Indiana Supreme Court has previously explained that:

The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to leaven the outliers ․ but not achieve a perceived “correct” result in each case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Defendant has the burden to persuade us that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind.), as amended (July 10, 2007), decision clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).

Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original).

[6] Indiana's flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court's judgment “should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate at the end of the day turns on “our sense of 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. The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] 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).

[7] The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one year to six years, with an advisory sentence of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b). And a person faces a term of not more than one year for a Class A misdemeanor. I.C. § 35-50-3-2. Here, the court sentenced Flora to concurrent terms of five years for the Level 5 felony conviction and 183 days for each of the Class A misdemeanors, for an aggregate term of five years.

[8] On appeal, Flora contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses because the “offense is, at its core, a non-violent drug possession charge.” Appellant's Br. at 16. He also contends that he “was not dealing, manufacturing, or distributing” the methamphetamine; that he “was not armed”; and that he “voluntarily disclosed” that he had the drugs in his pocket. Id. Further, he argues that the “offense was accompanied by no brutality, no weapon, and no harm to any person.” Id. at 16-17.

[9] And Flora contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character because “he suffers from a traumatic brain injury sustained in a motorcycle accident in which his girlfriend died on his chest,” he has a “disabling left hip condition,” he had “been completely sober from methamphetamine” for three years until 2024 when “his romantic partner die[d] in her sleep,” and he is “not a young offender with decades of potential recidivism ahead of him.” Id. at 17-18.³

[10] However, Flora has not met his burden on appeal to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate. Regarding the nature of the offenses, Flora was found sleeping in a stairwell, and, when an officer attempted to rouse him, he twice said “f**k the police” while swatting his arm. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 16. Flora then resisted arrest by “tensing his arms with great force[.]” Id. And Flora was found in possession of 8.3 grams of methamphetamine, which is more than three grams above the threshold needed to sustain his conviction. See I.C. § 35-48-4-6.1(b)(1) (stating that the offense for possession of methamphetamine is a Level 5 felony if the amount of the drug involved is at least five grams but less than ten). Flora has not presented any evidence portraying the offenses in a positive light.

[11] As for his character, Flora has a criminal history that dates back to 1990. He has five prior misdemeanor convictions and nine prior felony convictions, including convictions for rape, causing death while operating a motor vehicle, criminal deviate conduct, criminal confinement, battery, burglary, theft, auto theft, and robbery. Stated differently, Flora has a significant history of violent crimes. In addition, Flora has previously had his placement on probation revoked, and he was on probation at the time he committed the instant offenses

[12] We acknowledge that Flora has sustained trauma in his life. But that does not excuse years of disregarding the law or his choice to treat his trauma with illegal substances. Flora has not presented compelling evidence of substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character.

[13] Flora's sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses or his character. We therefore affirm the trial court.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Both parties refer to statements from the probable cause affidavit in their recitation of the facts, so we do as well.

2.   The State also alleged that Flora was a habitual offender, but the court dismissed that allegation on the State's motion.

3.   Flora briefly asserts that he believes certain factors “should have been considered as a mitigating factor[.]” Appellant's Br. at 18. To the extent that is an argument that the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him, Flora has not supported that statement with cogent argument.

Bailey, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.