Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2774| April 24, 2019 Page 1 of 7

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Leanna Weissmann

Lawrenceburg, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Matthew B. Mackenzie

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Bruce L. Thomas,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 24, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2774

Appeal from the Switzerland 

Circuit Court

The Honorable W. Gregory Coy, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

78C01-1804-F4-164

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2774| April 24, 2019 Page 2 of 7

Statement of the Case

[1] Bruce Thomas (“Thomas”) appeals the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to

Level 5 felony dealing in methamphetamine1 and to being an habitual offender.2 

Thomas argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and his character. Concluding that Thomas’ sentence is not 

inappropriate, we affirm his sentence.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether Thomas’ sentence is inappropriate.

Facts

[3] On April 24, 2018, the Switzerland County Sheriff’s Office received a 

complaint from a woman accusing Thomas of selling methamphetamine to her 

husband. Law enforcement questioned the husband, and he informed them 

that he had seen Thomas with a “bunch” of methamphetamine at his apartment 

that day. (App. Vol. 2 at 26). 

 

1

IND. CODE § 35-48-4-1.1.

2

I.C. § 35-50-2-8. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2774| April 24, 2019 Page 3 of 7

[4] Based on this information, law enforcement officials obtained a search warrant 

for Thomas’ apartment and executed it the following day. In executing the 

search warrant, law enforcement discovered methamphetamine “packaged in 

plastic in a manner to be sold.” (App. Vol. 2 at 29). They also found pills,

marijuana, syringes, digital scales, glass smoking pipes, and a handgun and 

ammunition in Thomas’ apartment. Thomas admitted that he had possessed 

and sold methamphetamine out of his apartment on “multiple occasions.” 

(App. Vol. 2 at 29). 

[5] The State charged Thomas with two counts of Level 4 felony dealing in 

methamphetamine, Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine, two counts 

of Level 6 felony possession of a controlled substance, Level 6 felony unlawful

possession of a syringe, Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance, Level 

6 felony theft, Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and Class C

misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. The State also alleged that Thomas 

was an habitual offender.

[6] Thomas entered into an open plea agreement with the State wherein nine of the 

ten counts were dropped in exchange for Thomas’ admission to Level 5 felony 

dealing in methamphetamine and the habitual offender allegation. The 

agreement left sentencing to the trial court’s discretion with a maximum term of 

ten (10) years, and the State agreed not to contest a sentence modification after 

Thomas served half of his sentence. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2774| April 24, 2019 Page 4 of 7

[7] At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found both mitigating and aggravating 

factors present. The trial court identified the following mitigating factors: (1) 

Thomas’ guilty plea saved the expense of a jury trial; (2) the undue hardship 

that imprisonment would yield to him or his family; (3) he was a victim of a 

violent crime, which led him to battle depression and turn to using 

methamphetamine; (4) his completion of an eight-week substance abuse course 

while in jail; (5) his remorse; (6) his attitude indicated that he is less likely to 

commit another crime in the future; and (7) his good behavior while 

incarcerated in jail. The trial court identified the following aggravating factors: 

(1) Thomas’ prior criminal history of five misdemeanor convictions and two 

felony convictions; (2) all of his convictions involved alcohol and/or drugs; (3) 

he has been placed on probation seven times and had his probation revoked at 

least once. The trial court then found that the aggravating factors outweighed

the mitigating factors and that Thomas was not likely to respond affirmatively 

to probation. The trial court sentenced Thomas to six (6) years for the Level 5 

felony conviction and enhanced that sentence by four (4) years for his habitual 

offender adjudication, for a total executed term of ten (10) years in the 

Department of Correction. Thomas now appeals. 

Decision

[8] Thomas argues that his sentence of ten years is inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offense and his character. This Court may revise a sentence if it is 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the 

offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). “The 7(B) ‘appropriateness’ inquiry is a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2774| April 24, 2019 Page 5 of 7

discretionary exercise of the appellate court’s judgment, not unlike the trial 

court’s discretionary sentencing determination.” Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 

1291-92 (Ind. 2014), cert. denied. “On appeal, though, we conduct that review 

with substantial deference and give due consideration to the trial court’s 

decision—since the principal role of our review is to attempt to leaven the 

outliers, and not to achieve a perceived correct sentence.” Id. at 1292 (internal 

quotation marks, internal bracket, and citation omitted). “Appellate Rule 7(B) 

analysis is not to determine whether another sentence is more appropriate but 

rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Conley v. State, 972 

N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), 

reh’g denied. The defendant has the burden of persuading the appellate court 

that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 

(Ind. 2006).

[9] “‘[R]egarding the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting 

point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime 

committed.’” Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1174, 1181 (Ind. 2016) (quoting 

Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 

218 (Ind. 2007)). Here, Thomas was convicted of a Level 5 felony and found to 

be an habitual offender. The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is “for a 

fixed term of between one (1) and six (6) years, with the advisory sentence 

being three (3) years.” I.C. § 35-50-2-6(b). IND. CODE § 35-50-2-8 states in 

relevant part that, where a person has been convicted of a Level 5 felony and 

found to be an habitual offender, the court shall sentence him to an additional 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2774| April 24, 2019 Page 6 of 7

fixed term that is between two (2) and six (6) years. I.C. § 35-50-2-8(i)(2). The 

trial court sentenced Thomas to six (6) years for the Level 5 conviction and an 

additional four (4) years for the habitual offender enhancement, for a total 

sentence of ten (10) years. 

[10] Thomas argues that the nature of the offense does not support his ten-year 

sentence. Specifically, he argues that his offense “tips towards the less serious 

side of the spectrum.” (Thomas’ Br. 10). We disagree. The nature of Thomas’ 

offense involves him not only possessing, but also dealing methamphetamine 

“multiple times” out of his apartment. (App. Vol. 2 at 29). As the trial court 

noted, “any time a drug is dealt, there is a potential for harm to another human 

being.” (Tr. 17). Law enforcement also discovered a substantial quantity of 

other drugs and paraphernalia in his apartment. Additionally, this offense is 

more serious since it is his second conviction for dealing drugs. 

[11] When considering the character-of-the-offender prong of our inquiry, one 

relevant consideration is the defendant’s criminal history. Rutherford v. State, 

866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The significance of a defendant’s 

prior criminal history will vary “based on the gravity, nature and number of 

prior offenses as they relate to the current offense.” Smith v. State, 889 N.E.2d 

261, 263 (Ind. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

[12] Thomas has a significant history of criminal convictions for alcohol and drug 

related offenses. This history includes seven prior convictions, made up of five 

misdemeanors and two felonies. One of his felony convictions was for dealing 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2774| April 24, 2019 Page 7 of 7

a controlled substance and the other was for maintaining a common nuisance. 

Thomas has been placed on probation seven times and had his probation 

revoked once. While we recognize that he has taken advantage of rehabilitative 

opportunities in the instant case, his continued drug related behavior is 

indicative of a failure to do so in the past and reflects poorly on his character. 

See, e.g., Phelps v. State, 969 N.E.2d 1009, 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (stating that 

the defendant’s refusal to take advantage of rehabilitative efforts offered to him 

reflected poorly on his character), trans. denied. 

[13] Thomas has not persuaded us that the nature of the offense and his character 

make his sentence inappropriate. Therefore, we affirm the sentence imposed by 

the trial court.

[14] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Bailey, J., concur.