Randy C. Boring, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Randy Boring was found in possession of methamphetamine while being arrested for separate offenses of dealing the same drug. The possession and dealing offenses, committed on different dates in the same county, were charged and prosecuted separately. In the possession prosecution, which is the subject of this appeal, Boring pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony methamphetamine possession and received a two-year executed sentence. Because we do not find Boring's sentence inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense or his character, we affirm.

Facts

[2] In 2024, the Wabash County Drug Task Force was investigating Boring for methamphetamine dealing. Before the events underlying this appeal occurred, the State charged Boring with two counts of Level 4 felony methamphetamine dealing and one count of Level 5 felony methamphetamine dealing in case number 85C01-2410-F4-1097 (the “Dealing Case”).¹ Officers then executed an arrest warrant for Boring and a search warrant for his home.

[3] While arresting Boring, officers found a crystalline substance in a folded dollar bill they took from his pocket. Boring told the officers it was methamphetamine. The officers also discovered a glass smoking device and a digital scale in Boring's garage and another glass smoking device and a straw with residue on it in his living room. Additionally, officers found a bag containing a crystalline substance, a mirror with residue, and several more glass smoking devices in a female resident's bedroom. Both crystalline substances field-tested positive for methamphetamine.

[4] The State charged Boring with a single count of Level 6 felony methamphetamine possession. The State later amended the charges in the Dealing Case to allege three Level 4 felonies and add a habitual offender allegation. A jury found Boring guilty as charged in the Dealing Case, and the trial court imposed an aggregate twenty-four-year sentence. Boring subsequently pleaded guilty without a plea agreement in this case.

[5] Boring's presentence investigation report reveals that he is currently sixty-four years old, served in the U.S. Army from 1979 to 1982, and obtained a GED during his military service. At the time of his offense, Boring was unemployed and smoking methamphetamine daily. Boring's criminal history includes convictions for Class D felony theft and two Level 6 felony methamphetamine possessions, as well as three methamphetamine dealing convictions in the Dealing Case. Boring has misdemeanor convictions for OWI and driving while suspended. He also has one probation violation and one successful completion of probation on his record.

[6] At sentencing, the trial court found Boring's criminal history to be an aggravating circumstance and his guilty plea to be a mitigating circumstance. The court imposed a two-year executed sentence consecutive to the aggregate sentence in the Dealing Case and ordered Boring to participate in Recovery While Incarcerated. The court stated it would consider a sentence modification, with the State's consent, if Boring completed a “clinically appropriate substance abuse treatment program.” App. Vol. II, p. 61.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Boring appeals, challenging his sentence as inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) and arguing the trial court abused its discretion in failing to credit mitigating circumstances supported by the record.

I. Inappropriateness

[8] 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 unless “compelling evidence” portrays the defendant's offense and character “in a positive light.” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008)). Our principal role is to “leaven the outliers” rather than “to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225. A defendant need not prove that their sentence is inappropriate in light of both the nature of the offense and their character. Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 126 (Ind. 2024). But “to 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.

[9] Here, Boring was sentenced for one Level 6 felony. The sentencing range runs from six months to two and one-half years, with an advisory sentence of one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). Thus, Boring's two-year sentence was above the advisory sentence but fell below the maximum.

A. Character

[10] We begin our analysis with Boring's character. A history of criminal conduct “weighs against relief.” Oberhansley v. State, 208 N.E.3d 1261, 1272 (Ind. 2023). “This weight is measured by the number of prior convictions and their gravity, by their proximity or distance from the present offense, and by any similarity or dissimilarity to the present offense that might reflect on a defendant's culpability.” Bryant v. State, 841 N.E.2d 1154, 1156 (Ind. 2006). Boring's criminal history contains six felonies, of which five relate to methamphetamine dealing and possession felonies committed between 2019 and 2024. He was also found in possession of methamphetamine while being arrested on a warrant in the Dealing Case for dealing that drug. Despite Boring's history of methamphetamine use, he has presented no evidence of efforts to overcome addiction, whether voluntary or court-ordered. Boring's criminal history thus weighs substantially against relief.

[11] Boring argues his GED, military service, and asserted self-employed status demonstrate “strong character traits.” Appellant's Br., p. 17. But the record contains no evidence about Boring's self-employment. And while Boring's military service is commendable, he fails to present compelling evidence of virtuous conduct since he left the military. See Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122 (discussing “substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character”).

[12] Boring next contends that running his sentence in this case consecutive to his aggregate sentence in the Dealing Case will “impose greater hardship” on him because he was sixty-three at sentencing and already stood to be incarcerated until age eighty-one before receiving this sentence. Appellant's Br., p. 14. But Boring reported “good” physical health and no mental health concerns. App. Vol. II, p. 44. And his age cuts both ways. He has persisted into his sixties in committing offenses despite long-running contact with the criminal justice system, which is not compelling evidence of good character.

[13] Boring also claims the guilty plea he entered without a plea agreement shows acceptance of responsibility. But a “guilty plea is not necessarily a mitigating factor ․ where evidence against the defendant is so strong that the decision to plead guilty is merely pragmatic.” Amalfitano v. State, 956 N.E.2d 208, 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). And here, Boring admitted to officers that he knew the substance in his pocket was methamphetamine, leaving him no viable defense.

B. Nature of Offense

[14] Because Boring's character does not support relief, his argument based on the nature of his offense must be “all the stronger” to warrant a sentence revision. Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 127. Boring argues his offense was “not the most egregious” offense of its kind and that “the State failed to demonstrate any particularized harm [in]flicted by Boring” on the State or any specific victim. Appellant's Br., p. 17. This argument, however, fails to portray Boring's offense “in a positive light ․ such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality.” Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122. By contrast, the record shows that Boring combined his methamphetamine possession and use with dealing activity, which makes his offense more serious.

II. Abuse of Discretion

[15] Boring also claims the court abused its discretion in failing to credit mitigating circumstances supported by the record. But where a trial court has erred in the process it used to sentence a defendant, the error is harmless if the sentence imposed was not inappropriate. Barbee v. State, 269 N.E.3d 888, 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied.

Conclusion

[16] Boring fails to persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate in light of either the nature of his offense or his character. Accordingly, we affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We take judicial notice of court records in the Dealing Case. Ind. Evidence Rule 201(b)(5).

Weissmann, Judge.

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