MEMORANDUM DECISION
Tavitas, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Robert Walker pleaded guilty to child molesting, a Level 4 felony. The trial court sentenced Walker to twelve years in the Department of Correction (“DOC”). On appeal, Walker argues that his sentence is inappropriate. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.
Issue
[2] Walker raises one issue, which we restate as whether Walkers sentence is inappropriate.
Facts
[3] Walker, who was born in 1981, was convicted of molesting H.M., who was twelve years old at the time of the incidents. Although it is unclear from the record presented to us, it appears that H.M. was in Walkers care at the time. H.M. described four incidents of sexual misconduct by Walker. Those incidents happened sometime between the beginning of H.M.’s sixth grade school year and H.Ms thirteenth birthday in September 2022.
[4] On October 13, 2022, the State charged Walker with Count I, child molesting, a Level 1 felony, for knowingly or intentionally performing or submitting to sexual intercourse with H.M.; Count II, child molesting, a Level 2 felony, for performing or submitting to fondling or touching of H.M., and facilitating the act by furnishing H.M. with a drug without her knowledge; and Count III, child molesting, a Level 4 felony, for performing or submitting to fondling or touching with the intent to arouse Walkers sexual desires. On November l6, 2023, Walker pleaded guilty to Count III, and the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges.
[5] Regarding the basis for Count III, H.M. stated that Walker was “jerking off” in front of her. Appellants App. Vol. II p. 18. H.M. stated that Walker took off his shorts, placed H.Ms hand on his penis, and moved H.M.’s hand up and down on his penis. Walker stopped and put his penis back in his shorts when Walker heard his mother approaching. The trial court accepted the guilty plea and entered judgment of conviction on Count III.
[6] On December 20, 2023, the trial court sentenced Walker to twelve years executed in the DOC. The trial court found as a mitigating factor that Walker pleaded guilty but gave “moderate to low weight” to the plea because Walker received a substantial benefit from the dismissal of the Level 1 and Level 2 felony child molesting charges. Id. at 117. The trial court found as aggravating Walkers substantial juvenile and criminal history, which included eleven felony convictions, fifteen misdemeanor convictions, and numerous violations of community supervision. The trial court also noted that prior attempts to rehabilitate Walker had failed. Walker now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Walker argues that his twelve-year sentence is inappropriate. The Indiana Constitution authorizes independent appellate review and revision of sentences imposed by a trial court. Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 122 (Ind. 2024) (citing Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6). This authority, as implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), enables this Court to “revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial courts decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Deference to the trial courts sentence should prevail unless “overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense and the defendants character.” Oberhansley v. State, 208 N.E.3d 1261, 1267 (Ind. 2023) (internal quotations omitted). A defendant, however, need not show that both the nature of the offense and his or her character warrant revision; rather, “a strong showing on one prong” may “outweigh a weak showing” on the other prong. Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 127.
[8] Additionally, in determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we are not limited to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances found by the trial court. Oberhansley, 208 N.E.3d at 1271. “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.” Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 122 (internal quotations omitted). “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. (internal quotations omitted).
[9] When 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. Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014). Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-5.5 provides that “[a] person who commits a Level 4 Felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two (2) and twelve (12) years. ․” Here, Walker pleaded guilty to child molesting, a Level 4 felony, and was sentenced to twelve years in the DOC.
Nature of the Offense
[10] Our analysis of the “nature of the offense” requires us to look at the extent, brutality, and heinousness of the offense. See Wilson v. State, 157 N.E.3d 1163, 1182 (Ind. 2020). Walker argues that his offense was not egregious; however, we disagree. Walker pleaded guilty to child molesting by fondling or touching a child under the age of fourteen. Specifically, Walker, who was approximately forty-one years old at the time, made H.M., who was twelve years old, hold his penis and move her hand back and forth on his penis. Walker only stopped when he heard his mother coming into the room. Nothing about the nature of the offense warrants a conclusion that Walkers sentence is inappropriate.
Character of the Offender
[11] Our analysis of the character of the offender involves a broad consideration of a defendants qualities, including the defendants age, criminal history, background, past rehabilitative efforts, and remorse. See Harris v. State, 165 N.E.3d 91, 100 (Ind. 2021); McCain v. State, 148 N.E.3d 977, 985 (Ind. 2020). The significance of a criminal history in assessing a defendants character and an appropriate sentence vary based on the “gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses as they relate to the current offense.” McElfresh v. State, 51 N.E.3d 103, 112 (Ind. 2016). “Even a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendants character.” Prince v. State, 148 N.E.3d 1171, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).
[12] Walker argues that he pleaded guilty and took responsibility for his actions. Walker, however, gained a significant benefit from pleading guilty because the State dismissed the Level 1 and Level 2 felony charges. Walker also has an extensive history of juvenile adjudications, a criminal history that includes eleven felony convictions and fifteen misdemeanors, and multiple violations of community supervision. Walker was given many chances at rehabilitation as a juvenile and adult; Walker, however, has continued to disregard the law. All of this reflects poorly on his character.
[13] Neither the nature of the offense nor Walkers character warrant revision. Accordingly, Walkers sentence is not inappropriate.
Conclusion
[14] Walkers sentence is not inappropriate. Accordingly, we affirm.
[15] Affirmed.
Memorandum Decision by Judge Tavitas
Judges Crone and Bradford concur.
Crone, J., and Bradford, J., concur.