inappropriateness standard in Indiana

2025It is the defendant’s burden to prove that “his or her sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review.” Cramer, 240 N.E.3d at 698 (cleaned up) (quoting Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)).

2020See Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006) (“defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met this inappropriateness standard of review”). [17] When considering the nature of the offense, we start by looking at the advisory sentence to determine the appropriateness of a sentence.

2018The appellant bears the burden of “persuad[ing] the appellate court that his or her sentence has met this inappropriateness standard of review.” Kimbrough v. State, 979 N.E.2d 625, 630 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)). [28] The advisory sentence is only “the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 494 .

2018Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (2007). [33] Streete has not carried his burden of persuading this Court that his sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review.

2018Roush v. State, 875 N.E.2d 801, 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

2017The “defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A04-1703-CR-642 | August 25, 2017 Page 5 of 6 her sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review.” Roush, 875 N.E.2d at 812 . [10] Looking first at the nature of the offense, we see that Walts lured his intended victim to the bar, pointed his gun at the bartender and threatened to kill her, threatened to kill two patrons of the bar if they called police, repeatedly threatened to kill Smith as he chased him, gun in hand, and told the arresting officer that he would kill Sm

2017“A defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met this inappropriateness standard of review.” Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). [10] The principal role of Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008).

2016Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225 . [19] In reviewing an inappropriateness challenge, the central inquiry is *407 not whether one sentence is more appropriate than- another, but rather whether the sentence in the challenged case is inappropriate.

2020Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1174, 1181 (Ind. 2016). 4 4 We note that Butler incorrectly relies on Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), which was decided while transfer was pending in Anglemyer.

2020Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1174, 1181 (Ind. 2016). [14] In considering the nature of Bellamy’s offenses, “the advisory sentence is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence.” Green v. State, 65 N.E.3d 620, 637-38 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied (2017).

2020Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1174, 1181 (Ind. 2016). [14] In considering the nature of Bellamy’s offenses, “the advisory sentence is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence.” Green v. State, 65 N.E.3d 620, 637-38 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied (2017).

2019Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1174, 1181 (Ind. 2016). [20] In considering the nature of Haynes’s offense, “the advisory sentence is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence.” Green v. State, 65 N.E.3d 620, 637-38 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied (2017).

2026And because sentencing “‘is principally a discretionary function in which the trial court’s judgment should receive considerable deference,’” a trial court’s sentencing decision will generally prevail “unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense . . . and the defendant’s character.” Id. (alteration omitted) (quoting Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015)). [13] In reviewing the defendant’s sentence, “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), and we

2025And because sentencing “‘is principally a discretionary function in which the trial court’s judgment should receive considerable deference,’ a trial court’s sentencing decision will generally prevail ‘unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense . . . and the defendant’s character . . . .’” Id. (alteration omitted) (quoting Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015)). [19] In reviewing the defendant’s sentence, “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),

2016On appeal, the “defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review.” Rice v. State, 6 N.E.3d 940, 946 (Ind. 2014). [8] In evaluating “the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Abbott v. State, 961 N.E.2d 1016, 1019 (Ind. 2012).

2016Our posture on appeal is again deferential: “A defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review.” Rice v. State, 6 N.E.3d 940, 946 (Ind.2014). “[Regarding the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind.), decision clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind.2007).

2026And because sentencing “‘is principally a discretionary function in which the trial court’s judgment should receive considerable deference,’” a trial court’s sentencing decision will generally prevail “unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense . . . and the defendant’s character.” Id. (alteration omitted) (quoting Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015)). [13] In reviewing the defendant’s sentence, “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), and we

2025And because sentencing “‘is principally a discretionary function in which the trial court’s judgment should receive considerable deference,’ a trial court’s sentencing decision will generally prevail ‘unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense . . . and the defendant’s character . . . .’” Id. (alteration omitted) (quoting Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015)). [19] In reviewing the defendant’s sentence, “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),

2020A few years later, however, we clarified that a request under Appellate Rule 7(B) to “revise a lawfully entered sentence” requires that outside of capital cases the defendant “persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met this inappropriateness standard of review.” Kimbrough v. State, 979 N.E.2d 625, 630 (Ind. 2012) (citing Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)) (quotations omitted).

2018The appellant bears the burden of “persuad[ing] the appellate court that his or her sentence has met this inappropriateness standard of review.” Kimbrough v. State, 979 N.E.2d 625, 630 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)). [28] The advisory sentence is only “the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 494 .

2019“Of course a defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met this inappropriateness standard of review.” Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). [45] Under Appellate Rule 7(B), 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).

2019“Of course a defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met this inappropriateness standard of review.” Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). [31] Under Appellate Rule 7(B), 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).

2017Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 . [9] In considering the nature of Price’s offenses, “the advisory sentence is the starting point the Legislature selected as appropriate for the crime committed.” Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014).

2017Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 . [18] In considering the nature of Littlejohn’s offenses, “the advisory sentence is the starting point the Legislature selected as appropriate for the crime committed.” Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014).

2020See Thacker v. Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 342, 345 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (noting Court’s preference for deciding cases on their merits). [8] Although a trial court may have acted within its lawful discretion in imposing a sentence, article VII, sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorize independent appellate review and revision of sentences through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that we may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we determine that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and

2019See Thacker v. Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 342, 345 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (noting Court’s preference for deciding cases on their merits). [13] Although a trial court may have acted within its lawful discretion in imposing a sentence, article VII, sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorize independent appellate review and revision of sentences through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that we may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we determine that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and

2016Rather, I would follow Childress, Ford, Anderson, Simmons, Williams, and the substantial number of similar cases that hold that it is an appellant’s burden to demonstrate that his sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review as defined in the Rule. 5 As Sorrell did not argue that his sentence is inappropriate in light of both the nature of his offense and his character, I would hold that he forfeited our review of his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). 5 Other published opinions that acknowledge this proposition include the following: Swallow v. State, 19 N.E.3d 396 , 402

2016Rather, I would follow Childress, Ford, Anderson, Simmons, Williams, and the substantial number of similar cases that hold that it Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 19 of 20 is an appellant’s burden to demonstrate that his sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review as defined in the Rule. 8 As Connor did not argue that his sentence is inappropriate in light of both the nature of his offense and his character, I would hold that he forfeited our review of his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). 8 Other published opinions that ac

2016Rather, I would follow Childress, Ford, Anderson, Simmons, Williams, and the substantial number of similar cases that hold that it is an appellant’s burden to demonstrate that his sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review as defined in the Rule. 5 As Sorrell did not argue that his sentence is inappropriate in light of both the nature of his offense and his character, I would hold that he forfeited our review of his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). 5 Other published opinions that acknowledge this proposition include the following: Swallow v. State, 19 N.E.3d 396 , 402

2016Rather, I would follow Childress, Ford, Anderson, Simmons, Williams, and the substantial number of similar cases that hold that it Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 19 of 20 is an appellant’s burden to demonstrate that his sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review as defined in the Rule. 8 As Connor did not argue that his sentence is inappropriate in light of both the nature of his offense and his character, I would hold that he forfeited our review of his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). 8 Other published opinions that ac

2016Rather, I would follow Childress, Ford, Anderson, Simmons, Williams, and the substantial number of similar cases that hold that it is an appellant’s burden to demonstrate that his sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review as defined in the Rule. 5 As Sorrell did not argue that his sentence is inappropriate in light of both the nature of his offense and his character, I would hold that he forfeited our review of his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). 5 Other published opinions that acknowledge this proposition include the following: Swallow v. State, 19 N.E.3d 396 , 402

2016Rather, I would follow Childress, Ford, Anderson, Simmons, Williams, and the substantial number of similar cases that hold that it Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 19 of 20 is an appellant’s burden to demonstrate that his sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review as defined in the Rule. 8 As Connor did not argue that his sentence is inappropriate in light of both the nature of his offense and his character, I would hold that he forfeited our review of his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). 8 Other published opinions that ac

2020Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1174, 1181 (Ind. 2016). 4 4 We note that Butler incorrectly relies on Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), which was decided while transfer was pending in Anglemyer.

2020Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007). [12] In considering whether a sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense, we compare the elements of the offense to the “details and circumstances of the commission of the offense.” Townsend v. State, 45 N.E.3d 821, 831 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.

2020However, in Connor v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), another panel of our court determined that an appellant is not required to establish both prongs of the inappropriateness analysis.

2020Instead, that panel said, “although the rule does state that we may revise a sentence we find to be inappropriate “in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender . . . we view that as a statement that we as the reviewing court must consider both of those prongs in our assessment, and not as a requirement that the defendant must necessarily prove each of those prongs render his sentence inappropriate.” Id.

2019Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3028 | June 21, 2019 Page 10 of 12 [23] While appellate courts apply our power under Rule 7(B) sparingly, we may revise sentences, “when certain broad conditions are satisfied.” Taylor v. State, 86 N.E.3d 157, 165 (Ind. 2017) (quoting Rice v. State, 6 N.E.3d 940, 947 (Ind. 2014)).

2019Polk v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1253, 1260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied.

2019Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010). [22] A defendant bears the burden of persuading this Court that his or her sentence meets the inappropriateness standard.

2017“Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.” Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). [11] A person who commits a Level 2 felony must be imprisoned for a fixed term of between ten and thirty years, with an advisory sentence of seventeen-and-a half Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-20 | June 21, 2017 Page 4 of 5 years.

2016Furthermore, when considering an inappropriateness challenge, “[w]e must exercise great restraint in reviewing and revising sentences and recognize the special expertise of the trial bench in making sentencing decisions.” Wells v. State, 836 N.E.2d 475, 480 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). [5] As to the nature of the offense, Spence argues that his role in the burglary was minor compared to Hensley and Perry’s roles.

2016The defendant bears the burden to “persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met this inappropriateness standard of review.” Calvert v. State, 930 N.E.2d 633, 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). [8] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge that the advisory sentence is the starting point which the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.

2016James v. State, 868 N.E.2d 543, 546 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

2016On appeal, the “defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review.” Rice v. State, 6 N.E.3d 940, 946 (Ind. 2014). [8] In evaluating “the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Abbott v. State, 961 N.E.2d 1016, 1019 (Ind. 2012).