Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-581 | January 10, 2019 Page 1 of 4

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

Jennifer L. Koethe

La Porte, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Lyubov Gore

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Dallas Preston,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

January 10, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-581

Appeal from the La Porte Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Thomas Alevizos, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

46C01-1706-F3-512

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-581 | January 10, 2019 Page 2 of 4

[1] Dallas Preston appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court after he pleaded 

guilty to Level 3 felony aggravated battery. Preston argues that the trial court 

erred by failing to find two proffered mitigating factors. Finding no error, we 

affirm.

Facts

[2] On June 4, 2017, Preston and some friends went out after work. They drank 

heavily and used cocaine. They met Maurice Edmond at a bar and took him 

with them to another party. Preston, Edmond, and Dusty Buren left the party 

together in Preston’s vehicle. Preston blacked out and crashed the vehicle into 

a guardrail. At that point, Preston and Buren exited the vehicle and, in a blind 

rage, beat Edmond. Preston hit, struck, stomped, and kicked Edmond in the 

head. He injured Edmond’s face, caused significant head trauma, and fractured 

Edmond’s left eye socket, resulting in ocular nerve damage with full or partial 

loss of eyesight in the left eye. Preston and Buren then fled the scene, leaving 

Edmond on the ground.

[3] On June 7, 2017, Preston was charged with Level 3 felony aggravated battery. 

On December 1, 2017, Preston pleaded guilty as charged pursuant to a written 

plea agreement. At the February 2, 2018, sentencing hearing, Preston asked 

that the trial court find his history of substance abuse and mental illness as 

mitigating factors. The trial court declined, finding Preston’s criminal history 

as an aggravator and his guilty plea as a mitigator. The trial court imposed an 

eleven-year sentence on Preston, who now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-581 | January 10, 2019 Page 3 of 4

Discussion and Decision

[4] Preston’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court should have found his 

history of substance abuse and mental illness to be mitigating factors.1 Preston 

has the burden of demonstrating that the mitigating evidence is both significant 

and clearly supported by the record. McElfresh v. State, 51 N.E.3d 103, 112 (Ind. 

2016). Even if we find error, we will affirm if we are persuaded that the trial 

court would have imposed the same sentence had it considered the proffered 

mitigators. Id.

[5] The record does, indeed, show that Preston has a long and serious history of 

substance abuse. He has been addicted to alcohol since the age of eight, has 

regularly used marijuana since the age of thirteen, has been a cocaine addict 

since he was nineteen, and has been addicted to methamphetamine since the 

age of twenty-four. He has also abused prescription medication. Preston has 

previously been ordered to complete an alcohol treatment program, but there is 

no indication that he has, in fact, sought out or completed any treatment. He is 

well aware of his serious substance abuse issues but has not taken any steps to 

treat those issues. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err by 

 

1

Preston cites to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) but does not make an argument that the sentence is 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. We note that even if he had made a Rule 

7(B) argument, we would have affirmed the sentence, given the particularly brutal nature of the offense and 

Preston’s lengthy criminal history, which includes multiple prior battery convictions.

He also argues that the trial court did not afford enough weight to his guilty plea as a mitigator, but we do not 

review the weight given to aggravators and mitigators by the trial court. See Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 

482, 491 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g. at 875 N.E.2d 218.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-581 | January 10, 2019 Page 4 of 4

declining to find this to be a mitigating factor. See Caraway v. State, 959 N.E.2d 

847, 851 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (finding that when a defendant is aware of a 

substance abuse problem but has not taken steps to treat it, the trial court may 

find that the addiction is an aggravator).

[6] As for Preston’s purported mental health issues, there is no evidence supporting 

his claim that he has been diagnosed with a myriad of issues aside from his own 

self-serving testimony. And even that testimony is contradicted by Preston’s 

statements in the presentence investigation report, when he reported that he was 

in “fair mental health,” and by his testimony that he was not being treated for 

or suffering from any mental illnesses or diseases. Appellant’s Conf. App. Vol. 

III p. 12; Tr. Vol. II p. 3-4. In addition to a dearth of medical evidence 

supporting his claims of mental illness, Preston did not present any evidence 

showing that his purported mental health issues rendered him unable to control 

his behavior, limited his functioning, or had a nexus to the crime at issue. 

Therefore, the trial court did not err by declining to find this to be a mitigating 

factor.

[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

May, J., and Tavitas, J, concur.