Opinion
No. 02A03–1212–CR–515.
2013-07-2
Frederick L. KING, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.
Appeal from the Allen Superior Court; The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Judge; Cause No. 02D05–1207–FB–123. Anthony S. Churchward, Deputy Public Defender, Fort Wayne, IN, Attorney for Appellant. Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Andrew Falk, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Appeal from the Allen Superior Court; The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Judge; Cause No. 02D05–1207–FB–123.
Anthony S. Churchward, Deputy Public Defender, Fort Wayne, IN, Attorney for Appellant. Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Andrew Falk, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
OPINION
PANEL PER CURIAM.
Frederick L. King (“King”) pled guilty to Robbery, as a Class B felony, after taking a $14.99 shirt from a Fort Wayne retailer; as he left the store, King pushed a loss prevention officer to the floor, causing injury. The sentencing range for a Class B felony is from five years to twenty years imprisonment, with an advisory sentence of ten years. SeeInd.Code § 35–50–2–5.
The trial court sentenced King to ten years imprisonment, with six years of the sentence suspended to probation. As aggravating circumstances, the trial court noted that King had three prior juvenile delinquency adjudications and, at the time of the instant offense, had been released on bond in another case involving the use of a firearm, resulting in a Class C felony charge. As mitigating circumstances, the trial court noted that King had pled guilty and expressed remorse.
The authority granted to this Court by Article 7, § 6 of the Indiana Constitution permitting appellate review and revision of criminal sentences is implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides: “The Court may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Under this rule, and as interpreted by case law, appellate courts may revise sentences after due consideration of the trial court's decision, if the sentence is found to be inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222–25 (Ind.2008); Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852, 856–57 (Ind.2003). The principal role of such review is to attempt to leaven the outliers. Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225.
Having reviewed the matter, we conclude that the trial court did not impose an inappropriate sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B), and the sentence does not warrant appellate revision. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the sentence imposed by the trial court. See Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind.2013); Merida v. State, 987 N.E.2d 1091 (Ind.2013); Lynch v. State, 987 N.E.2d 1092 (Ind.2013).
Judgment affirmed. NAJAM, J., BAILEY, J., and BARNES, J., concur.