MEMORANDUM DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Jesse Leon (Leon), appeals his sentence for aggravated battery, a Level 3 felony, following a plea of guilty.
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Leon presents this court with one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether his ten-year executed sentence for aggravated battery was appropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On August 22, 2020, Leon and Trace McNinch (McNinch) were seated in a vehicle together in front of Leons house in Hammond, Indiana. An argument ensued and Leon exited the vehicle. After entering the house, he returned with a firearm and shot McNinch in the lower body. McNinch sustained nine gunshot wounds: four wounds each to his upper right and left leg, and one to the distal tip of the left middle toe. He incurred permanent scarring to his legs and needs weekly debridement treatments and wound packing.
[5] On August 28, 2020, the State filed an Information, charging Leon with attempted murder, a Level 1 felony; aggravated battery, a Level 2 felony; battery by means of a deadly weapon, a Level 5 felony; battery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 5 felony; and criminal recklessness, a Level 6 felony. On October 30, 2021, Leon and the State entered into a stipulated plea agreement, in which Leon agreed to plead guilty to aggravated battery, as a Level 3 felony, and the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges, with sentencing left to the trial courts discretion. On January 25, 2022, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. After the presentation of the evidence, the trial court found as aggravating factors that (1) the harm suffered by McNinch was significant and greater than the elements necessary to prove the commission of the offense, and (2) Leon “pulled the trigger nine times in anger.” (Appellants App. Vol. II, p. 83). As mitigating factors, the trial court noted that Leon had pleaded guilty “thus saving the [c]ourt and taxpayers of this county the time and expense of trial.” (Appellants App. Vol. II, p. 83). Although the trial court noted that Leon did not have “much history,” the court did not use this as a mitigating circumstance. (Transcript Vol. II, p. 42). The trial court sentenced Leon to ten years executed at the Department of Correction, with four years suspended to probation.
[6] Leon now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[7] Leon contends that his ten-year executed sentence for aggravated battery, as a Level 3 felony, is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character and requests this court to revise his sentence downward. An appellate court has the constitutional authority to revise a sentence if it is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). Leon has the burden to show that his sentence is inappropriate. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on rehg 875 N.E.2d 218.
[8] When reviewing a sentence, our principal role is to leaven the outliers rather than necessarily achieve what is perceived as the correct result in each case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). We review sentences in their entirety to avoid overlooking the forest by focusing on the trees. Id. “We do not look to determine if the sentence was appropriate; instead we look to make sure the sentence was not inappropriate.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). “[S]entencing is principally a discretionary function in which the trial courts judgment should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. “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). As we assess the nature of the offenses and character of the offender, “we may look to any factors appearing in the record.” Boling v. State, 982 N.E.2d 1055, 1060 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Ultimately, whether a sentence should be deemed inappropriate “turns on our sense of 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, 895 N.E.2d at 1224.
[9] Turning first to the nature of the offense, we observe that “the advisory sentence is the starting point the Legislature selected as appropriate for the crime committed.” Pierce v. State, 949 N.E.2d 349, 352 (Ind. 2011). Here, Leon was sentenced to a Level 3 felony aggravated battery. Indiana Code section 35-50-2-5(b) provides a sentencing range of three to sixteen years of imprisonment, with an advisory sentence of nine years for a Level 3 felony. The trial court imposed a sentence of ten years executed, with four years suspended to probation. Thus, Leons total sentence is one year above the advisory sentence, with the executed portion of his sentence three years below the advisory sentence.
[10] The nature of this offense points to a seemingly senseless violent crime that left McNinch scarred for life. He sustained nine gunshot wounds, leaving him with permanent scarring to his legs that required weekly debridement treatments and wound packing. McNinch victims impact statement speaks to how the injuries he sustained on that night dramatically changed his life, resulting in lingering emotional and psychological issues.
[11] Turning to Leons character, we note that while he does not have a criminal record, he has been using marijuana since he was sixteen and alcohol since he was eighteen years old. He admitted to being under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, and Xanax on the day of the offense, to the point where he was “blacked out on drugs.” (Appellants Conf. App. Vol. III, p. 71). The evidence reflects Leon has a quick temper which contributed to the instant offense in which Leon shot McNinch nine times at close range. Alcohol and drug use in tandem with access to a gun proved to be an almost deadly combination on the night of August 22, 2020.
[12] Leons guilty plea does not warrant a further downward revision of his sentence after already having been considered by the trial court as a mitigating factor. It was clear his decision to plead guilty was a mere pragmatic one when faced with an attempted murder charge and an apparently non-existing defense. See Anglemyer, 875 N.E.2d at 221 (A guilty pleas significance is diminished where the decision to plead guilty is likely a pragmatic one because the evidence of a defendants guilt is overwhelming). Arguing that imprisonment would be a hardship on his family, Leon requests this court to sentence him to community corrections where he would be able to help his family financially. However, “absent special circumstances,” a court is not required to find that imprisonment of a defendant will result in undue hardship. Dowdell v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1146, 1154 (Ind. 1999). Leon has two children and another child on the way. He reported that he last saw his son three years ago and had no information pertaining to his daughter. We find that the record contains no evidence to suggest that Leon or his dependents will be unduly affected by the imposed sentence.
[13] While we acknowledge that Leon has demonstrated good behavior while out on bond during pretrial proceedings, obtained gainful employment, and claimed to have stayed away from alcohol and drugs, this change in behavior only occurred after shooting an innocent victim nine times and being faced with an attempted murder charge. Leon has failed to present “compelling evidence” of his virtuous traits or examples of good character such that we may find it necessary to order a downward revision of his sentence. See Custance v. State, 128 N.E.3d 8, 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Accordingly, we find Leons sentence not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
CONCLUSION
[14] Based on the foregoing, we affirm Leons sentence for aggravated battery, a Level 3 felony.
[15] Affirmed.
Riley, Judge.
[16] May, J. and Tavitas, J. concur