MEMORANDUM DECISION
Altice, Chief Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Lamar Golston pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter, a Level 2 felony. The trial court subsequently sentenced Golston to nineteen years in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). Golston argues that his sentence is inappropriate given the nature of the offense and his character.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In September 2022, Golston got into an argument with his neighbor, Curtis Burnside, outside Burnsides home. During the argument Golston brandished a gun. Burnside attempted to diffuse the situation, and he backed away from Golston. Burnside then turned around and attempted to run back into his home, and Golston fired his gun three times, hitting Burnside in his back, buttocks, and shoulder. The Gary Police Department responded to the reported incident and found Burnside dead inside his home due to multiple gunshot wounds. The State charged Golston with murder the next day.
[4] In October 2023, Golston pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter, a Level 2 felony. The trial court subsequently accepted the plea agreement and held a sentencing hearing in December 2023 and sentenced Golston to nineteen years in the DOC.
[5] Golston now appeals, challenging the appropriateness of the trial courts imposition of the nineteen-year sentence. Additional information will be provided below as needed.
Discussion & Decision
[6] Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B), this court may revise a sentence, if, after considering the trial courts decision, we find that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and character of the offender. Sentencing review under App. R. 7(B) is deferential to the trial courts decision, and we avoid merely substituting our judgment. Golden v. State, 862 N.E. 2d 1212, 1218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. “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] The principal role of App. R. 7(B) review is to “attempt to leaven the outliers” and to “identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve the perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Golston bears the burden on appeal of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
[8] In determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, the advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Brown v. State, 160 N.E.3d 205, 220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). The sentencing range for a Level 2 felony is between ten years and thirty years, with an advisory sentence of seventeen and one-half years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5. Golston was given a nineteen-year sentence – just slightly over the advisory sentence.
[9] Our review of the nature and circumstances of the crime reveals that Golston and Burnside were involved in a heated argument. When Golston brandished a weapon, Burnside backed away and put his hands up in an attempt to deescalate the situation. Burnside then turned around to run back inside his home, but Golston shot him in the back, buttocks, and shoulder. Burnside was unarmed. Nothing about these circumstances indicates that Golston is deserving of a lesser sentence.
[10] As to Golstons character, he points out that he has not had any criminal convictions since 1983. He argues that he has demonstrated that he can and has led a law-abiding life and that this offense is an aberration of his character. Golstons prior criminal history began and ended with conspiracy to commit rape, rape, robbery, sodomy, and aggravated assault. Golston was sentenced to twenty years in prison and served twelve and one-half years. This criminal history, while not ongoing, is serious and as the trial court observed, “its a substantial one.” Transcript at 48. We agree.
[11] Golston has failed to persuade us that the nature of the offense or his character warrants revision of his sentence. He was given a nineteen-year sentence – only a year and a half over the advisory sentence – this midrange sentence is not inappropriate.
Memorandum Decision by Chief Judge Altice
Judges Bradford and Felix concur.
Bradford, J. and Felix, J., concur.