MEMORANDUM DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Darick R. Van (Van), appeals his sentence following a guilty plea to possession of a narcotic drug, a Level 6 felony, Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6(a).
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Van presents this court with one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether Vans sentence is inappropriate considering the nature of his offense and his character.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On May 18, 2023, police officers pulled over Vans vehicle after he became the suspect in a reported theft. When questioned whether he had anything illegal in his vehicle, Van admitted to having “perc” in a pill crusher. (Appellants App. Vol. II, p. 11). The officers located the pill crusher on the floorboard of the truck next to Vans feet. Inside the device was a blue and white powdery substance and in a hidden compartment, the officers found two blue pills. Both the powdery substance and the pills tested positive for fentanyl and weighed a combined 0.4 grams. Van admitted to ownership of the pills.
[5] On May 24, 2023, the State filed an Information, charging Van with Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic drug. On July 10, 2023, the parties entered into a plea agreement, in which Van agreed to plead guilty as charged. As part of the terms of the agreement, Van was placed in the Drug Court Diversion Program and was required to adhere to the Drug Courts rules. On December 4, 2023, the State filed a petition to terminate Vans placement in Drug Court due to his positive alcohol test on November 17, 2023, his admission to using fentanyl on November 23, 2023, his possession of fentanyl pills on December 1, 2023, and his possession of detox mouthwash, which was designed to mask a chemical test. The trial court granted the States petition the next day.
[6] On January 12, 2024, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. At sentencing, the trial court noted Vans criminal history and failed efforts at rehabilitation as an aggravating circumstance. His criminal history included five adjudications as a juvenile with informal adjustments, operational supervision, and services at Youth Life Skills. His adult criminal history comprised of three felony convictions and nine misdemeanor convictions, with four convictions for possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, resisting law enforcement, two convictions for operating without receiving a license, three habitual traffic violator adjudications, and operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life. He was given opportunities on unsupervised probation, services through Criminal Division Services, home detention, probation, and Drug Court. He has had his suspended sentence revoked three times, his suspended sentence modified twice, his sentence modified once, his probation modified once, and his home detention revoked once. At the time of the instant offense, Van was on probation in an unrelated Cause. Besides considering Vans criminal history as an aggravator, the trial court also noted Vans guilty plea, his acceptance of responsibility, his efforts in Drug Court, and his remorse as mitigating circumstances. At the close of the evidence, the trial court sentenced Van to one year executed.
[7] Van now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[8] Van maintains that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Article 7, Sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorize independent appellate review and revision of a trial courts sentencing order. See, e.g., Livingston v. State, 113 N.E.3d 611, 613 (Ind. 2018). This appellate authority is implemented through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Id. Revision of a sentence under Rule 7(B) requires the appellant to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character. See Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B); Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We consider not only the aggravators and mitigators found by the trial court, but also any other factors appearing in the record. Baumholser v. State, 62 N.E.3d 411, 417 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. It is the defendants burden to “persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met th[e] inappropriateness standard of review.” Roush v. State, 875 N.E.2d 801, 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
[9] Indianas flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial courts judgment “should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). The principal role of appellate review is to attempt to “leaven the outliers.” Id. at 1225. Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate at the end of the day 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.” Id. at 1224. The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “In assessing whether a sentence is inappropriate, appellate courts may take into account whether a portion of the sentence is ordered suspended or is otherwise crafted using any of the variety of sentencing tools available to the trial judge.” McFall v. State, 71 N.E.3d 383, 390 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] 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).
[10] In the Indiana sentencing scheme, the legislature has set a minimum and maximum sentence for each class of crime, and it has determined an advisory sentence to be used as a starting point. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 488 (Ind. 2007), clarified on rehg, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). Van was convicted of a Level 6 felony offense. Pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-50-2-7, a Level 6 felony carries an advisory sentence of one year, with a range of six months to two and one-half years. Van was sentenced to the advisory sentence, i.e., one year executed. Defendants who receive an advisory sentence, like Van, have a heavy burden to establish that the sentence is inappropriate as the Legislature selected the advisory sentence as appropriate for the crime committed. See Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014).
[11] Turning first to the nature of the offense, we cannot conclude that this element of our review necessitates a revision of Vans sentence. The nature of the offense is found in the details and circumstances of the commission of the offense and the defendants participation. Croy v. State, 953 N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Here, after being stopped as a suspect in a reported theft, officers found fentanyl in the vehicle, which Van admitted was his. Vans possession of fentanyl was not particularly egregious in nature and therefore the advisory sentence for the Level 6 felony was not inappropriate. See Shelby v. State, 986 N.E.2d 345, 371 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (an appellate court is “unlikely to consider an advisory sentence inappropriate.”)
[12] With respect to the second prong of our review, we note that “[t]he character of the offender is found in what we learn of the offenders life and conduct.” Croy, 953 N.E.2d at 664. When assessing a defendants character, one relevant fact we consider is the offenders criminal history. Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852, 857 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “The significance of criminal history varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current offense.” Id. The trial court noted Vans extensive criminal history of five adjudications as a juvenile, and his three felony convictions and nine misdemeanor convictions as an adult. By his own admission, Van repeatedly violated Indianas controlled substance laws throughout his life by using marijuana, fentanyl, spice, and cocaine. His criminal and substance abuse history are indicators of Vans unwillingness to abide by rules and restrictions that are placed on him. Vans reluctance to change his life is further highlighted by Vans past failed efforts at reform and rehabilitation. As a juvenile, Van received operational supervision and services at Youth Life Skills. As an adult, he was referred to supervised probation, services through Criminal Division Services, home detention, probation, and was given an opportunity to participate in Drug Court in the current Cause that he squandered away by bringing fentanyl pills into the facility to continue his substance abuse. During his time in Drug Court, he attempted to hide his continued abuse by using a detox mouthwash designed to mask a chemical test.
[13] Based on the record before us, Van has a record of unsuccessful attempts to undergo treatment and rehabilitation. Yet, on appeal, Van now requests this court to modify his advisory sentence and impose a probationary sentence or place him in community corrections. The suspension of a sentence is a matter of grace and a judicial favor to a defendant. In other words, a suspended sentence is not something to which a defendant has a right or an entitlement. Childers v. State, 656 N.E.2d 514, 516 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). Furthermore, it is quite difficult for a defendant to prevail on a claim that the placement of his sentence is inappropriate. Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). This is because the question under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. Id. at 344. A defendant challenging the placement of a sentence must convince us that the given placement is itself inappropriate. Id. As a practical matter, trial courts know the feasibility of alternative placements in particular counties or communities. Id. at 343. For example, a court is aware of the availability, costs, and entrance requirements of community corrections placements in a specific locale. Id. at 343-44. Although Van has completed previously imposed home detentions with mixed success and community corrections found him to be eligible for their in-patient residential services program, based on Vans juvenile and adult criminal history, the failed attempts at rehabilitation through less severe sentences, and his unsuccessful opportunity at Drug Court in the current Cause, we cannot say that the executed advisory sentence imposed by the trial court was inappropriate based upon his character and the nature of his offenses. Accordingly, we affirm the trial courts decision.
CONCLUSION
[14] Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial courts imposition of an advisory, executed sentence is not inappropriate considering the nature of his offense and his character.
[15] Affirmed.
Riley, Judge.
Kenworthy, J. and Felix, J. concur.