MEMORANDUM DECISION
[1] Donald Gene Dowden, Jr., was convicted in Bartholomew Circuit Court of Level 6 felony theft. The trial court imposed the maximum two and one-half-year sentence. Dowden appeals and argues that 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] In March 2020, Dowden and an accomplice stole two catalytic converters from HK Auto Repair Center by removing them from a Ford F150 pickup truck. Law enforcement officers discovered Dowdens cell phone at the scene of the theft. When officers questioned Dowden, he admitted that he stole the catalytic converters.
[4] The State charged the theft as a Level 6 felony because Dowden had a 2017 conversion conviction. On June 3, 2021, Dowden pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony theft without the benefit of a plea agreement.
[5] At Dowdens sentencing hearing, the court found the following aggravating circumstances: 1) Dowdens criminal history which consisted of fourteen felonies and five misdemeanors, including convictions for conversion, theft, and robbery; 2) Dowdens prior probation violations; 3) the safety of the community; 4) Dowdens lack of success with treatment and failure to take advantage of all opportunities for treatment; and 5) Dowdens lack of remorse. The court weighed the aggravating circumstances against the mitigating factors of Dowdens guilty plea and cooperation with law enforcement. The court then concluded that the “aggravating circumstances far outweigh the mitigating circumstance[s].” Appellants App. p. 28. The trial court ordered Dowden to serve two and one-half years in the Bartholomew County Jail.
[6] Dowden now appeals his sentence.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Dowden argues that his sentence is inappropriate pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Under this rule, we may modify a sentence that we find is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” App. R. 7(B). Making this determination “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 v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). Sentence modification under Rule 7(B), however, is reserved for “a rare and exceptional case.” Livingston v. State, 113 N.E.3d 611, 612 (Ind. 2018) (per curiam).
[8] When conducting this review, we generally defer to the sentence imposed by the trial court. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). Our role is to “leaven the outliers,” not to achieve what may be perceived as the “correct” result. Id. Thus, deference to the courts sentence will prevail unless the defendant persuades us the sentence is inappropriate by producing compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense—such as showing restraint or a lack of brutality—and the defendants character—such as showing substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of positive attributes. Robinson v. State, 91 N.E.3d 574, 577 (Ind. 2018); Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).
[9] The trial court ordered Dowden to serve a maximum sentence for his Level 6 felony theft conviction. The range of sentence for a Level 6 felony conviction is six months to two and one-half years. I.C. § 35-50-2-7(b). Focusing on his guilty plea and cooperation with law enforcement, Dowden claims that his maximum sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.
[10] Concerning the nature of the offense, Dowden argues that there is nothing about the commission of his offense that would support the imposition of a maximum sentence. Dowden characterizes his offense as fairly ordinary. He trespassed on private property and stole two catalytic converters. While there is nothing horrific about his offense, there is also no evidence that would cast his offense in a “positive light ․ such as accompanied by restraint.” See Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122.
[11] Turning to the character of the offender, Dowdens criminal history spans thirty years and consists of fourteen felonies and five misdemeanors, including a robbery conviction, a forgery conviction, a fraud conviction, and eight felony theft convictions. Dowden was also convicted of misdemeanor conversion. Despite many years of incarceration, treatment, and probation, Dowden continues to commit criminal offenses. And many of those offenses are similar to the theft committed in this case.
[12] Dowden has not been able to lead a law-abiding life and also has not exhibited remorse for his criminal behavior. Although he pleaded guilty, cooperated with officers, and apologized for committing the theft in this case, the court concluded that his “apology is not believable” when considered against his thirty-year history of committing thefts and similar crimes. Appellants App. pp. 27-28. Finally, the court noted that Dowden attempted to “justify his actions for his own needs.” Id. at 28. We will not second guess the trial courts assessment of Dowdens expression of remorse. For all of these reasons, we cannot say that Dowdens character demonstrates that his sentence is inappropriate.
Conclusion
[13] Although the nature of Dowdens offense might not be exceptional, Dowdens character more than supports the trial courts decision to impose the two-and-one-half year sentence in this case. Therefore, we cannot say his sentence is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B), and we affirm his sentence.
[14] Affirmed.
Mathias, Judge.
Brown, J., and Molter, J., concur.