II v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Thomas McConnell, II, (“McConnell”) appeals the six-year sentence imposed after he was convicted of Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine.¹ He specifically argues that his sentence is inappropriate. Concluding that McConnell has failed to show that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether McConnell's sentence is inappropriate.

Facts

[3] On February 15, 2023, Indiana State Police Trooper Randall Miller (“Trooper Miller”) initiated a traffic stop of McConnell, who was driving his truck (“the truck”) eighty-two miles per hour in a seventy-mile-per-hour zone. During the stop, Trooper Miller observed “multiple indicators of criminal activity” and decided to deploy his drug-detecting canine, Bosco (“Bosco”), to conduct a free air sniff around the truck. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 137). When Bosco alerted to the presence of drugs in the truck, Trooper Miller returned Bosco to the police vehicle and searched the truck.

[4] During his search of the truck, Trooper Miller raised the truck's hood and noticed a silver cylinder-shaped container (“the container”) that was about six inches in diameter, which seemed out of place. Specifically, the container had been “drilled into the ․ passenger front quarter panel ․ [u]nderneath the hood in the engine compartment.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 33).

Tabular or graphical material not displayable at this time.

(State's Ex. 3 (cropped), Ex. Vol. 4 at 9).

Tabular or graphical material not displayable at this time.

(State's Ex. 4 (cropped), Ex. Vol. 4 at 10).

[5] Inside the container, Trooper Miller discovered a clear plastic baggie that contained a white powder (“the white powder”). An Indiana State Police Lab forensic scientist subsequently tested the white powder and determined that it was 1.81 grams of methamphetamine.

[6] In February 2023, the State charged McConnell with Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine. The charging information alleged that McConnell had knowingly or intentionally possessed methamphetamine with the enhancing circumstance of having a 2019 conviction for Level 5 felony dealing in methamphetamine.

[7] Three years later, at McConnell's February 2026 trial, the jury heard the facts about the offense as set forth above and convicted McConnell of Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine. In a bifurcated proceeding, McConnell admitted that he had a 2019 conviction for Level 5 felony dealing in methamphetamine, and the trial court entered judgment of conviction for Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine.

[8] At McConnell's April 2026 sentencing hearing, the trial court reviewed McConnell's presentence investigation report, which revealed that forty-two-year-old McConnell has an extensive multi-county criminal history that spans more than twenty years. Specifically, McConnell has five felony convictions, including convictions for Level 6 felony nonsupport of a dependent child in Ripley County, Level 5 felony dealing methamphetamine in Franklin County, Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance in Ripley County, Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement in Rush County, and Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine in Rush County. In addition, McConnell has four misdemeanor convictions, including convictions for Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated endangering a person in Dearborn County, Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana in Decatur County, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement in Ripley County, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement in Rush County. Further, McConnell has three drug-related convictions in Ohio. McConnell also has a history of violating probation and was on both probation and parole at the time that he committed the offense in this case.

[9] After reviewing McConnell's PSI and hearing testimony, the trial court found that McConnell's extensive multi-county criminal history was “a substantial and significant aggravating factor.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 228). In addition, the trial court found that the nature of the offense was an aggravating factor. Specifically, the trial court explained as follows:

This is not a run of the mill Possession of Methamphetamine[ ] [case] ․ Possession, run of the mill, was it's in your pocket, in your glove box, on your floorboard or something of that nature․ here, it's underneath your hood in a canister ․ that was bolted onto the [interior] fender in a pretty intentional, deliberate mechanism as a[n] elaborate scheme, ․ artifice, contrivance, whatever you want to call it, in a failed attempt to avoid detection. I think that a level of intentionality used in this is far beyond that which I see in a customary garden variety ․ possession case. And this, I think that's an aggravating factor as well, just the extent to which you went to, to secret your criminal enterprise of possession․ probably as ․ illuminated ․ by your criminal history․ You got busted a few times, got a little bit wiser, ․ came up with, “Hey, I think I can get around this[,]”․ but unfortunately for you, you ran into ․ a State Police officer that's pretty well versed himself in the detection of narcotics․ I think you're ․ maxable based upon your criminal history alone, probably. If not, then most definitely then based upon your history of probation violation[s] and beyond any shadow of a doubt, ․ based upon what you actually did here is not being, in any way, garden variety.

(Tr. Vol. 3 at 228-30). The trial court, which did not find any mitigating factors, sentenced McConnell to six (6) years in the Department of Correction.

[10] McConnell now appeals.

Decision

[11] McConnell argues that his six-year sentence is inappropriate. We disagree.

[12] 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, we find that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. The defendant bears the burden of persuading this Court that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). 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.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). 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).

[13] 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. Here, McConnell was convicted of Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine. The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is between one (1) and six (6) years, and the advisory sentence is three (3) years. I.C. § 35-50-2-6(b). The trial court sentenced McConnell to six years, which is the maximum sentence.

[14] With regard to the nature of the offense, we note that McConnell, who has prior drug possession and dealing convictions, hid his methamphetamine in a container that he attached to the front quarter panel of the truck under the hood. We agree with the trial court that McConnell's placement of the container demonstrated a level of planning and intentionality that is beyond what is typically seen in a drug possession case.

[15] With regard to his character, we note that McConnell has an extensive multicounty criminal history that spans more than twenty years. Specifically, McConnell has five felony convictions, including convictions for possessing and dealing methamphetamine. He also has misdemeanor convictions, three drug-related convictions in Ohio, and multiple probation violations. Further, McConnell was on probation and parole when he committed the offense in this case. McConnell's former contacts with the law have not caused him to reform himself. See Jenkins v. State, 909 N.E.2d 1080, 1086 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied.

[16] Based on the nature of the offense and his character, McConnell has failed to persuade this Court that his maximum six-year sentence is inappropriate. We further note that this is simply not one of those rare and exceptional cases for which a sentence modification under Rule 7(B) is reserved. Therefore, we affirm McConnell's sentence.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1.

Pyle, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.