Roger D. McCord, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Roger D. McCord (“McCord”) pleaded guilty to dealing in a schedule I controlled substance ¹ as a Level 4 felony and admitted to being a habitual offender ² , and the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of twelve years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”). McCord appeals and raises one issue for our review: whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. We affirm and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 2, 2025, officers with the Petersburg Police Department initiated a traffic stop on a vehicle driven by McCord, and during the stop, a search was conducted, in which the officers found glass smoking devices used to ingest illicit substances. McCord was arrested, and a search warrant was obtained for McCord's residence and his cell phone. When the police searched the residence, they found more glass smoking devices and a stand mixer and baking pan that contained drug residue. Prior to the search, police had received information that McCord had been engaging in drug activity involving “bath salts[.]” Tr. Vol. I p. 23.

[3] After they seized the suspected items containing drug residue, the police interviewed McCord. He identified the substance found in his residence as “bath salts” or “cathinones[,]” which are used “similar to methamphetamine[.]” Id. at 25. McCord told police that he ordered the drugs “from a website ․ from China” and that the package came “through the post office.” Id. at 25–26. He then stated that, when the substance arrives, it comes in “a form of a wax and it has to be dried out.” Id. at 26. When asked if he ever gave the substance to others, McCord told police that “he trades it, like helps friends out.” Id. The police searched McCord's cell phone and found messages between him and another individual from March 25, 2026, and April 2, 2026, in which McCord asked the other person if he needed anything, and after the other person answered affirmatively, McCord wrote that he had “four balls.” Id. at 28. McCord later wrote, “do you want it” and “225 each[.]” Id. Police recognized the term ball to refer to a way to weigh or measure drugs. The police also found messages on McCord's phone between him and his girlfriend, in which McCord stated, “you have fucked up a 450[-]gram salt batch by keeping my generator” and then “just over 230 grams.” Id. at 29–30.

[4] On April 4, 2025, the State charged McCord with Level 5 felony dealing in a schedule II controlled substance having a weight of at least one gram but less than five grams, which was elevated to a Level 4 felony due to the fact that McCord had a prior felony conviction for conspiracy to deal in methamphetamine. See Appellant's App. Vol. II pp. 20, 23. McCord was also charged with Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance and Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana and was also alleged to be a habitual offender. On August 29, 2025, the State moved to dismiss the charge of Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana and to amend McCord's dealing charge to dealing in a schedule I controlled substance, that being Alpha-Pyrrolidinohexanophenone (otherwise known as a-PHP)³ by either delivering the drug or manufacturing the drug by way of preparing and processing it.

[5] On February 18, 2026, McCord entered into plea agreement, in which he agreed to plead guilty to Level 4 felony dealing in a schedule I controlled substance and to being a habitual offender. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the maintaining a common nuisance charge and McCord's sentence would be capped at sixteen years, ten years for the Level 4 felony and six years for the habitual offender adjudication. At the change of plea hearing held the same day, McCord admitted that on April 2, 2025, he “knowingly or intentionally commit[ted] the offense of dealing [a] schedule [I] controlled substance being Alpha-Pyrrolidinohexanophenone otherwise known as a-PHP ․ by delivering [or manufacturing by way of preparing or processing] a-PHP ․ and that drug having a weight of at least [one] gram, but less than [five] grams.” Tr. Vol. I p. 16. He also admitted that he had previously been convicted of Class B felony conspiracy to deal in methamphetamine, which raised his present dealing offense to a Level 4 felony. Id. McCord further admitted that he was a habitual offender. During the hearing, the trial court advised McCord five times that he was pleading guilty to a Level 4 felony based on a felony enhancement, and he acknowledged the same. See id. at 11, 13, 15, 17. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court accepted McCord's guilty plea and set the case for a sentencing hearing.

[6] At the sentencing hearing, the trial court reiterated that McCord pleaded guilty to a Level 4 felony and admitted to being a habitual offender. McCord testified that he was sixty years old and that, at the time he was arrested, he was dating a forty-year-old woman and experienced “issues with sexual performance.” Id. at 36. He claimed that he found a website that sold drugs to help “with th[e] situation” and purchased the bath salts or a-PHP from the internet and received them through the U.S. Mail. Id. at 37. McCord stated that he had been taking the drug for six or seven years because it produced a euphoric sensation and that he was able to pass a drug test with it. He also stated that he only delivered the drug to himself and his girlfriend. McCord also testified that, in the past, he struggled with methamphetamine and acknowledged his significant criminal history. He also testified that, while incarcerated for his present offense, he participated in the “RISE program” and had graduated from the “MRT program[.]” Id. at 41. When asked about his texts discussing four balls, McCord claimed that he was not selling “balls,” but “four baby bulls[.]” Id. at 43.

[7] The trial court found several aggravating circumstances: McCord's extensive criminal history that consisted of two misdemeanor convictions and six felony convictions, two of which were for dealing offenses; he violated a condition of his pretrial release and bond in another case by committing the current offense; and prior leniency from the court in the form of probation had not deterred McCord's criminal behavior. As for mitigating circumstances, the trial court found McCord's guilty plea, which saved the court time and resources. The trial court found that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and sentenced McCord to six years for the Level 4 felony conviction enhanced by six years for his habitual offender adjudication for a total sentence of twelve years executed in the DOC. McCord now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] McCord contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and the character of the offender. The Indiana Constitution authorizes appellate review and revision of a trial court's sentencing decision. See Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6; Jackson v. State, 145 N.E.3d 783, 784 (Ind. 2020). “That authority is implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), which permits an appellate court to revise a sentence if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the sentence is found to be inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 159 (Ind. 2019).

[9] Our review under Appellate Rule 7(B) focuses on “the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). We generally defer to the trial court's sentencing decision, and our goal is to determine whether the defendant's sentence is inappropriate, not whether some other sentence would be more appropriate. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). “Such deference should prevail 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). The two prongs of 7(B) review are “separate inquiries to ultimately be balanced in determining whether a sentence is inappropriate.” Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 126 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Connor v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)). “[T]o the extent the evidence on one prong militates against relief, a claim based on the other prong must be all the stronger to justify relief.” Id. at 127.

[10] McCord was convicted of Level 4 felony dealing in a schedule I controlled substance ⁴ and was adjudicated to be a habitual offender. A person who commits a Level 4 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two and twelve years, with the advisory sentence being six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5. A person who is found to be a habitual offender shall be sentenced to an additional fixed term that is between eight years and twenty years if convicted of a Level 4 felony. I.C. § 35-50-2-8(i)(1). Here, McCord's plea agreement capped his sentence at sixteen years, ten years for the Level 4 felony and six years for the habitual offender adjudication.⁵ The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of twelve years, six years for the Level 4 felony enhanced by six years for being a habitual offender.

[11] When reviewing the nature of the offense, this court considers “the details and circumstances of the commission of the offense.” Merriweather v. State, 151 N.E.3d 1281, 1286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). In arguing that his sentence is inappropriate, McCord asserts that his actions were “significantly less egregious than the conduct of [other] drug dealers” because he was not “selling drugs as part of a money-making scheme” and there was no evidence of “violence surrounding his actions.” Appellant's Br. pp. 9–10. He contends that he was merely taking a substance that he purchased online to help with sexual performance and that he shared the drug with his girlfriend.

[12] Looking to the nature of McCord's offense, the evidence established that he, having been previously convicted of dealing drugs, purchased a schedule I controlled substance off of the internet from China and then proceeded to process and prepare it for consumption and sale in his residence. McCord admitted to dealing or delivering the drug to his girlfriend but there was also evidence, in the form of text messages, that he was selling the drug to others. Through his actions, he introduced the substance into the community by delivering it to others, and he admitted to using the drug for six or seven years. McCord has failed to demonstrate compelling evidence portraying the nature of his offense in a positive light, accompanied by restraint, regard, or lack of brutality. See Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122. The lack of compelling evidence portraying the nature of his offenses in a positive light means McCord must make an even stronger showing regarding his character to prevail. See Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 127.

[13] When we look to a defendant's character, we engage in “a broad analysis of the defendant's ‘qualities, life, and conduct.’ ” Cramer v. State, 240 N.E.3d 693, 699 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Crabtree v. State, 152 N.E.3d 687, 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied). McCord argues that his sentence should be revised based on his character because he was “remarkably forthright and honest about his actions” and took responsibility and pleaded guilty. Appellant's Br. p. 10. He further contends that his criminal history is a “product of a life of addiction” and one that he has made “great strides in overcoming.” Id. McCord also points to the fact that, prior to his arrest, he worked to help support his girlfriend's daughter.

[14] Although McCord took responsibility for his actions and pleaded guilty, the evidence established that he had a significant criminal history that consisted of two misdemeanor convictions and six felony convictions. Four of his six felony convictions were drug-related, two of them were for Class B felony conspiracy to deal in methamphetamine, one was for Level 6 felony possession of a syringe, and one was for Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine. McCord had previously been given probation, and his probation had been revoked three out of the four times it was ordered. When he committed the instant offense, he violated pretrial release or bond from another county for a pending offense. McCord had previously been sentenced to incarceration, work release, home detention, and probation, and none of these prior efforts deterred him from committing further offenses.

[15] Although McCord attempts to portray himself as honest and forthright because he contends that he told the police of his purchase and dealing of the a-PHP when he had lunch with them, Appellant's Br. p. 10, the evidence actually revealed that he told the police about the a-PHP when he was interviewed after he was arrested and his residence was searched. Tr. Vol. I pp. 25–26. Further, when trying to explain the text messages discussing the sale of four “balls[,]” McCord claimed that he was not talking about drugs but was instead discussing the sale of “four baby bulls.” Id. at 43. Such statements belie his claims of honesty and forthrightness. While we recognize that McCord has made efforts while incarcerated to better himself, we conclude that he has not demonstrated substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character to portray his character in a positive light such that sentence revision is warranted. See Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122.

[16] Based on the facts in the record, McCord has not demonstrated that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. However, we do note that there is an error in the abstract of judgment. In that document, Count III is denoted as the dismissed possession of marijuana charge, and the document does not reflect the felony enhancement from a Level 5 felony to a Level 4 felony. See Appellant's App. Vol. II pp. 54–55. Although “the abstract of judgment is not the final judgment of conviction and ․ the trial court's sentencing order is controlling, the abstract of judgment is the document sent to DOC.” Perry v. State, 258 N.E.3d 1028, 1033 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied; see also Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 793–94 (Ind. 2004). To avoid any confusion about McCord's convictions, the abstract of judgment should accurately reflect the trial court's final judgment of conviction. Because McCord clearly pleaded guilty to and was sentenced to Level 4 felony dealing in a schedule I controlled substance, we remand with instructions to correct the abstract of judgment to properly reflect the disposition. See Perry, 258 N.E.3d at 1033–34 (remanding to trial court to correct abstract of judgment where it did not correctly reflect the trial court's final judgment of conviction).

[17] Affirmed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-48-4-2.

2.   I.C. § 35-50-2-8.

3.   A-PHP is a synthetic cathinone that is a schedule I controlled substance. Ind. Code §§ 35-48-2-4(f), (g), 35-31.5-2-321(1).

4.   McCord maintains on appeal that he pleaded guilty to a Level 5 felony dealing offense and not a Level 4 felony offense. He is mistaken as the plea agreement called for him to plead guilty to dealing in a schedule I controlled substance “a Level 5 Felony with the Enhancement (Prior Conviction) to a Level 4.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 37. Further, throughout the change of plea hearing and the sentencing hearing, the trial court, the defense, and the State all repeatedly referred to his offense as an enhanced Level 4 felony, and McCord acknowledged that he was pleading guilty and being sentenced to a Level 4 felony. See Tr. Vol. I pp. 11, 13, 15–16, 17, 19, 20, 44, 46. McCord is correct that the abstract of judgment incorrectly states that he was convicted of a Level 5 felony. As stated later in this decision, we remand to the trial court to correct this error.

5.   As noted above, the minimum habitual offender enhancement for a Level 4 felony is eight years. However, McCord's habitual offender enhancement was capped at six years in the plea agreement, a point that was noted by the trial court at sentencing. See Tr. Vol. I p. 47.

Foley, Judge.

Felix, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.