MEMORANDUM DECISION
Statement of the Case
[1] Eric Carr was convicted of three counts of dealing in methamphetamine. The trial court issued an aggregate sentence of seven years, with two years suspended to probation. Carr presents one issue on appeal: Whether the trial court issued an inappropriate sentence.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In 2021, the Wayne County Drug Task Force became aware that Carr had been “continuously selling drugs.” Tr. Vol. II at 181. The Task Force enlisted Adam Hildebrand to serve as a confidential informant in their investigation of Carr. Hildebrand had previously met Carr through a different drug dealer. Hildebrand conducted controlled buys from Carr on March 2, March 3, and March 5, 2021. On each day, Hildebrand purchased methamphetamine from Carr. Forensics tests later confirmed that Hildebrand purchased methamphetamine in amounts of 1.64 grams, 1.73 grams, and 1.55 grams.
[4] The State charged Carr with three counts of dealing in methamphetamine in amount at least one gram but less than five grams as a Level 4 felony. After a two-day jury trial, Carr was found guilty as charged. The trial court issued an aggregate sentence of seven years, with five years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) and two years suspended to probation. Carr now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Carr argues that the trial court issued an inappropriate sentence. 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 Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)).
[6] 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.
[7] We apply a holistic approach to our 7(B) review and “assess a sentence in light of the whole picture before us.” Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 127. A defendant need not prove that the sentence is inappropriate in light of both the nature of the offense and their character. Id. at 126–27. We will allow “a strong showing on one prong to outweigh a weak showing on the other.” Id. at 127.
[8] When considering the nature of the offense, we start with the advisory sentence. Brown v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1, 4 (Ind. 2014) (citing Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on rehg by 875 N.E.2d 218). Here, Carr was convicted of three counts of dealing in methamphetamine as Level 4 felonies. “A person who commits a Level 4 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two (2) and twelve (12) years, with the advisory sentence being six (6) years.” Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5 (emphasis added). The trial court sentenced Carr to a total of seven years, with five years executed at the DOC and the remaining two years suspended to probation.
[9] In looking at the nature of the offense, we consider “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). Here, Carr dealt methamphetamine on three days within in a one-week span. Carr asks us to reduce his sentence because the crime did not involve violence, weapons, or children. While it is true that none of Carrs crimes included violence, weapons, or children, none of these factors are elements of or relate to the charges against him. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.l. Essentially, Carrs argument is that because the worst things did not happen while he committed his crimes, we should consider his offense as less egregious than the typical crime. Again, the defendant must present “compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense.” Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 122. Here, Carr is not presenting compelling evidence that portrays the offense in a positive light, he is simply arguing that it could have been worse. His it-could-have-been-worse argument is a far cry from the evidence that renders a sentence inappropriate. See id. at 129–30.
[10] In analyzing 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 v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). Carr has a lengthy criminal history spanning many decades. Not including the instant offense, Carr has 15 misdemeanor convictions spanning from 1993 to 2020 as well as a 2002 felony conviction. Additionally, while awaiting trial on his charges in this matter, Carr was charged with resisting law enforcement, unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle, and theft. Thus, Carr has not shown an ability to halt his pattern of criminal conduct.
[11] Based on Carrs present offense and his lengthy history of criminal behavior, we conclude that he has not 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).
Affirmed.
Felix, Judge.
Riley, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.