MEMORANDUM DECISION
[1] Shawn Patrick Moore (“Moore”) pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine as a Level 6 felony. He was sentenced to the Indiana Department of Correction for a period of 912 days, fully executed. Moore appeals and raises the following restated issue for our review: whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On April 7, 2021, Moores parole agent visited Moores residence to conduct a routine check. Appellants App. Vol. 2 at 15. While there, she found two knives and a marijuana joint in Moores pocket. Id. She also found drug paraphernalia—including a pipe containing methamphetamine—on Moores kitchen table. Id. When asked about the pipe, Moore admitted the items on the kitchen table were his. Id. Subsequent testing revealed the pipe not only contained methamphetamine but cocaine as well. Id. Moore was arrested, and the State charged him with possession of methamphetamine as a Level 6 felony, possession of cocaine as a Level 6 felony, possession of marijuana as a Class B misdemeanor, and possession of paraphernalia as a Class C misdemeanor. Id. at 9–11.
[4] Later in April 2021, Moore entered into a plea agreement with the State. He pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine, and the State dismissed the remaining three charges in exchange. Id. at 25–26. The trial court accepted Moores guilty plea and entered a judgment of conviction and sentencing order on May 27, 2021. Id. at 44–45. The trial court sentenced Moore to 912 days—the maximum sentence—fully executed in the Indiana Department of Correction, noting that Moore violated conditions of his parole and had an extensive history of criminal and delinquent activity. Id. at 45; Tr. Vol. 2 at 21. Moores criminal history consisted of twelve prior felony convictions and eleven misdemeanor convictions, including convictions for possession of methamphetamine and possession of paraphernalia. Appellants Conf. App. Vol. 2 at 32, 40. During sentencing, the trial court also noted that while Moore accepted responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty, he already received a benefit for that when the State dismissed his other three charges. Tr. Vol. 2 at 21.
Discussion and Decision
[5] The Indiana Constitution authorizes independent appellate review and revision of a trial courts 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 courts 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).
[6] Our role is only to “leaven the outliers,” which means we exercise our authority only in “exceptional cases.” Id. at 160. Thus, we generally defer to the trial courts decision, and our goal is to determine whether the defendants 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 defendants character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).
[7] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, the advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as the appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014). The sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is a fixed term of imprisonment between six months and two and one-half years, with the advisory sentence being one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7. So, Moores maximum sentence was over double the advisory sentence.
[8] He first argues his sentence is too harsh in light of the nature of his offense because he possessed only a “small” amount of methamphetamine, and there is nothing particularly egregious about that. Appellants Br. at 8. Analyzing the nature of the offense requires us to consider “whether there is anything more or less egregious about the offense as committed by the defendant that ‘makes it different from the typical offense accounted for by the legislature when it set the advisory sentence.’ ” Moyer v. State, 83 N.E.3d 136, 142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Holloway v. State, 950 N.E.2d 803, 807 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011)), trans. denied. Here, the trial judge reasonably considered that this offense was more egregious because Moore committed it while on parole. Tr. at 21. And Moore was not just found with a small amount of methamphetamine. He also had knives, other drugs, and drug paraphernalia, all while on parole for another drug-related offense. Appellants App. Vol. 2 at 15.
[9] As to his character, Moore acknowledges his criminal history, but he argues that it should not be used against him because he accepted responsibility for his misconduct by pleading guilty. The trial court reasonably gave minimal weight to Moores guilty plea because he already received a substantial benefit from the State dismissing his three other charges. Tr. at 21. The law is also well-established that it was proper for the trial court to consider Moores criminal history. Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852, 857 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
[10] Here, that history is extensive. Moore was 47 years old at sentencing, and his criminal history goes back at least to when he was 18 years of age. Appellants Conf. App. Vol. 2 at 30, 33. Omitting the offense at issue here, his criminal history includes twelve prior felony convictions and eleven misdemeanor convictions. Id. at 32. And again, Moore was on parole for unlawful possession or use of a legend drug as a Level 6 felony when he committed the offense at issue here. Id. at 40. Moreover, he has been charged on at least eleven separate occasions for different alcohol- and drug-related offenses, and he has repeatedly violated probation. Id. at 33–41. Further, Moore has had multiple opportunities to change his behavior, and his attempts at rehabilitation have failed. Tr. Vol. 2 at 22, 23.
[11] We cannot say that Moore has shown “substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character” such that his requested reduction of his sentence is warranted based on his character. Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122. Therefore, Moore has not shown that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
[12] Affirmed.
Molter, Judge.
Vaidik, J., and May, J., concur.