MEMORANDUM DECISION
Statement of the Case
[1] Alberto Alvarez pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and admitted that he had used a firearm in the commission of this offense. Alvarezs plea agreement left his sentence to the trial courts discretion. The trial court imposed a total aggregate sentence of 43 years of incarceration. Alvarez now appeals that sentence and raises one issue for our review: Whether his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In 2022, Alvarez lived with his fiancée and their four-year-old daughter, and he used his home to sell illegal drugs, including marijuana to adults and juveniles. On April 28, 2022, while Alvarez was selling marijuana in his home to X.H., a 17-year-old, X.H. allegedly tried to rob him and shot at him four times. Alvarez then shot X.H. many times, even after X.H. left the house. Upon emptying his clip, Alvarez reloaded his gun, followed X.H. outside, where X.H., who had been hit during the initial gunfire, was on his belly crawling away, and Alvarez shot X.H. several more times. When law enforcement officers arrived at the scene, Alvarez initially lied about what had occurred. Alvarez told the officers that he walked behind his house to retrieve the trash can and observed X.H. running towards him.
[4] The State charged Alvarez with murder and voluntary manslaughter as a Level 2 felony. The State also alleged that Alvarez used a firearm in the commission of these offenses. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Alvarez pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter as a Level 2 felony and admitted that he had used a firearm in the commission of that offense. The plea agreement required the State to dismiss the murder charge, and left Alvarezs sentence to the trial courts discretion.
[5] At the sentencing hearing, Alvarez also testified—and the pre-sentence investigation confirms—that he does not have a prior criminal history. Alvarez began using marijuana at 18 years old, and began dealing marijuana at the age of 19 or 20. Both of Alvarezs parents were killed when he was a young teenager, which he claimed led to him being diagnosed with depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”).
[6] The trial court sentenced Alvarez to 28 years executed at the Indiana Department of Correction (the “DOC”) for voluntary manslaughter as a Level 2 felony, which it enhanced by 15 years executed at the DOC for Alvarezs use of a firearm. In total, the trial court imposed a 43-year sentence. Alvarez now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
1. Alvarezs Sentence is Not Inappropriate Under Appellate Rule 7(B)
[7] Alvarez argues his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) and should be revised. The Indiana Constitution authorizes us to independently review and revise a trial courts sentencing decision. Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 159 (Ind. 2019) (citing Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6; McCain v. State, 88 N.E.3d 1066, 1067 (Ind. 2018)). That authority is implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), which permits us to revise a sentence if, after due consideration of the trial courts decision, we find that the sentence is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Faith, 131 N.E.3d at 159 (quoting Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B)).
[8] Sentencing is “principally a discretionary function in which the trial courts judgment should receive considerable deference.” Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 122 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008)). To overcome this deference, the defendant must present “compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense and the defendants character.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Oberhansley v. State, 208 N.E.3d 1261, 1267 (Ind. 2023)).
Our role is primarily to “leaven the outliers” and identify “guiding principles” for sentencers, rather than to achieve the “perceived ‘correct’ result” in each case. Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225. As such, we “focus on the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Id. Ultimately, we rely on our “collective judgment as to the balance” of all the relevant considerations involved, which include “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, 1226.
Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 122. In conducting this analysis, “we are not limited to the mitigators and aggravators found by the trial court.” Brown v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1, 4 (Ind. 2014).
[9] When considering the nature of the offense, we start with the advisory sentence. Brown, 10 N.E.3d at 4 (citing Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007)). Here, Alvarez pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter as Level 2 felony. “A person who commits a Level 2 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between ten (10) and thirty (30) years, with the advisory sentence being seventeen and one half (17 1/2) years.” Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5 (emphasis added). The trial court sentenced Alvarez to 28 years for his Level 2 felony conviction. Alvarez also used a firearm in committing his offense. “The court may sentence the person to an additional fixed term of imprisonment of between five (5) years and twenty (20) years.” Id. § 35-50-2-11(g). The trial court enhanced Alvarezs 28-year sentence by 15 years executed at the DOC for his use of a firearm, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 43 years executed at the DOC.
[10] Where, as here, the trial court deviated from the advisory sentence, one factor we consider is “whether there is anything more or less egregious about the offense committed by the defendant that makes it different from the ‘typical’ offense accounted for by the legislature when it set the advisory sentence.” T.A.D.W. v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1205, 1211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Holloway v. State, 950 N.E.2d 803, 806–07 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011)), as amended (May 26, 2023). We also consider whether the offense was “accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality.” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).
[11] Here, Alvarez commonly dealt illegal drugs to juveniles such as X.H. Alvarez shot X.H. multiple times, reloaded his gun, and continued shooting at X.H. while he laid on the ground. Therefore, Alvarez did not show a lack of restraint when he committed his offense. To the contrary, this offense was brutal, excessive, and continued after X.H. was crawling away from the scene.
[12] In considering the character of the offender, “we engage in a broad consideration of a defendants qualities,” T.A.D.W., 51 N.E.3d at 1211 (citing Aslinger v. State, 2 N.E.3d 84, 95 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), clarified on other grounds on rehg), including whether the defendant has “substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character,” Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122. Alvarez claims his character warrants a revised sentence because he has no criminal history. However, Alvarez admitted to dealing drugs consistently and repeatedly over many months. It is relatively uncommon to have a defendant admit to repeated deals such that ones customary and usual expenses could be covered by the profits of dealing in drugs. Alvarez admitted to such conduct. He quit his legal job so he could sell marijuana out of the home where his fiancée and four-year old daughter live. He said he earned approximately $8,000 per week, and was supporting “everybody.” Tr. Vol. II at 42. He also lied to law enforcement twice during the investigation about what happened with X.H. Therefore, Alvarez does not demonstrate the good character necessary to revise a sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B).
[13] Based on the serious nature of Alvarezs offense and his history of dealing drugs, we cannot say that Alvarez has produced compelling evidence demonstrating that the nature of his offense or his character renders his sentence inappropriate. See Hayko v. State, 211 N.E.3d 483, 487 n.1 (Ind. 2023), rehg denied (Aug. 18, 2023). As a result, we cannot say the trial court imposed an inappropriate sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B). We therefore affirm the trial courts sentencing decision.
[14] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.
Memorandum Decision by Judge Felix
Judges Riley and Kenworthy concur.