Chad M. Bell, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] The State charged Chad Bell with Level 2 felony methamphetamine dealing and Level 6 felony possession of cocaine or a narcotic drug, namely fentanyl. On the third day of trial, the parties reached an agreement for Bell to plead guilty to an amended charge of Level 3 felony methamphetamine possession in exchange for dismissal of the fentanyl charge, as well as charges in two other cases. The trial court accepted the agreement, imposed a 10-year sentence with four years suspended, and placed Bell on probation for three years. On appeal, Bell argues his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character. We affirm.

Facts

[2] This appeal involves charges the State brought in three separate cases. In September 2025, Bell “mooned” members of his extended family, including two young children, “by pulling his pants down and showing them his buttocks.” App. Vol. II, p. 114. The next month, police were called to a home from which Bell and his wife were being evicted. After the Bells left, officers entered the home and discovered syringes, drug-smoking devices, and a bag containing white residue.

[3] Three days later, police located Bell and served him with an arrest warrant based on those contraband items. Officers searched Bell during the arrest. In his socks, they found $5,811 in cash and several bags of suspected drugs. A crystalline substance weighing 33.68 grams field-tested positive for methamphetamine, and a 0.5-gram rock-like substance field-tested positive for fentanyl. Bell claimed he had sold his food truck for $12,000, and his wife stated they had “literally just sold” it. Id. at 21. And when an officer asked Bell why the drugs appeared to be “packaged for sale,” Bell stated he had bought them like that. Id.

[4] This series of events led to the State charging Bell with: Class B misdemeanor public nudity in case number 17D02-2510-CM-636; Level 6 felony syringe possession and Class C misdemeanor paraphernalia possession in case number 17D02-2510-F6-247; and Level 2 felony methamphetamine dealing and Level 6 felony possession of cocaine or a narcotic drug, namely fentanyl, in this case.

[5] Bell went to trial in this case. But on day three, the parties reached a plea agreement under which Bell pleaded guilty to an amended charge of Level 3 felony methamphetamine possession. In exchange, the State dismissed the fentanyl-related charge, as well as the public nudity, syringe, and paraphernalia charges in Bell's other cases. The State also agreed not to charge Bell's wife for possessing or dealing the methamphetamine police found on Bell.

[6] Before sentencing, DeKalb County Community Corrections and the county sheriff deemed Bell ineligible for community corrections supervision due to his “continued history of ․ noncompliance” and “multiple lockdowns in the jail” for making “violent/vulgar comments” to staff. Id. at 110–11. The DeKalb County Addiction Treatment Court denied Bell's referral, citing a “[c]ommunity safety concern.” Id. at 169. And the Northeastern Indiana Regional Veterans Treatment Court found Bell ineligible after he failed to provide the necessary documentation of his military service. Id. at 149.

[7] Bell's adult criminal history includes a 2011 conviction for Class D felony possession of a controlled substance. He also has misdemeanor convictions for offenses including operating a vehicle with a BAC of .15 or more, marijuana possession, battery, and public intoxication. He has been on probation three times and had it revoked twice. Bell informed the probation department that he had been sober from drugs for 10 years and, until recently, had his own food truck business. But he started drinking in 2024 and then relapsed into drug use and became a “heavy user” of methamphetamine who was “powerless to stop.” Id. at 123. In its presentence investigation report, the probation department recommended a 10-year sentence with two years suspended to probation.

[8] At Bell's sentencing hearing, he presented a letter accepting him into the Serenity House halfway house. The trial court noted that Bell had previously “accused the Court of being biased” and “been confrontational,” which the court found contrary to an acceptance of responsibility. Tr. Vol. II, p. 11. The court deemed Bell's criminal history to be an aggravating circumstance, and it found no mitigating circumstances. The court then imposed a sentence of 10 years with four years suspended and three years of probation. As a condition of probation, the court ordered Bell to enter and follow the recommendations of the DeKalb County Alcohol and Drug Program and to complete an approved recovery house program, among other things.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Bell argues that his sentence is inappropriate “in light of the fact that Bell is in need of treatment for his addiction issues rather than confinement.” Appellant's Br., p. 12. He asks us to revise his sentence to six years with three years suspended. We decline this request.

[10] Under Appellate Rule 7(B), 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 applying this standard, we afford “considerable deference” to the trial court's sentencing decision. Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008)). But such deference may be “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).” Id. Our principal role is to “leaven the outliers” rather than “to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225.

[11] We begin by noting that Bell received a mildly enhanced sentence. The sentencing range for a Level 3 felony is 3 to 16 years, with an advisory term of 9 years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5(b). Bell's 10-year sentence is slightly above the advisory term, but the court suspended four years with a requirement to participate in treatment. And Bell received less executed time than the probation department recommended. We also note that several programs offering alternatives to incarceration deemed Bell ineligible. And in pleading guilty to methamphetamine possession, Bell received considerable benefits: amendment of the dealing charge; dismissal of four other charges; and immunity for his wife from charges relating to the methamphetamine.

[12] Regarding the nature of his offense, Bell explains that he was severely addicted to methamphetamine and possessed the considerable amount found in his sock for personal use only. But it is unclear from the record whether the methamphetamine was in fact for Bell's personal use, rather than for dealing. The 33.68 grams of methamphetamine, apparently packaged for sale, constituted a quantity that is, by statute, sufficient to prove possession with intent to deliver even absent additional evidence of intent. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(b)(2) (providing a 28-gram threshold absent additional evidence). And Bell had $5,811 in cash in his sock. Even though the Bells explained that the money came from the sale of Bell's food truck for $12,000, they produced no corroboration for this narrative. Bell's addiction to methamphetamine also fails to explain why he was found in possession of fentanyl, a drug he did not report using.¹ These circumstances are suggestive, albeit not necessarily conclusive, evidence of dealing. The record does not, therefore, corroborate Bell's characterization of his offense as mere possession for personal use. Additionally, although Bell admitted to relapsing, he presented no evidence that he sought out addiction treatment before his arrest. See Caraway v. State, 959 N.E.2d 847, 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (finding no error in a trial court's decision to treat the defendant's failure to seek out alcohol abuse treatment as an aggravator). For these reasons, we do not find that the nature of Bell's offense compellingly warrants relief.

[13] As to Bell's character, he argues that he achieved 10 years of sobriety and showed candor concerning his addiction and its impact on him and his wife. We sympathize with Bell's struggle against addiction. But the overall picture we have of his character does not present a compelling case for relief. He has four prior convictions related to drugs and alcohol, including a felony, among other convictions. See Oberhansley v. State, 208 N.E.3d 1261, 1272 (Ind. 2023) (noting that a history of criminal conduct weighs against a defendant). He has violated probation twice in the past and was removed from a halfway house in 2012 for using “spice.” App. Vol. II, p. 126. He also made violent and vulgar comments to jail staff during this case. That history of violations and misconduct undermines his request to begin probation after three years instead of six. And although Bell ultimately pleaded guilty in the middle of trial in this case, the trial court expressly found that he had conducted himself in a manner contrary to accepting responsibility for his offense. We therefore find that his character does not justify relief.

[14] In these circumstances, we do not find Bell's sentence—slightly more than the advisory term and partially suspended—to be inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character.

Conclusion

[15] We decline to revise Bell's sentence and, therefore, affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In the presentence investigation report, Bell reported a history of using marijuana, inhalants, spice, cocaine, methamphetamine, ecstasy, LSD, mushrooms, and morphine.

Weissmann, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.