Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1097 | October 24, 2019 Page 1 of 5

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

John Andrew Goodridge

Evansville, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 

Attorney General of Indiana 

Megan M. Smith 

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Frankie Lynn Pollard, Jr.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff. 

October 24, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-1097

Appeal from the Vanderburgh 

Circuit Court 

The Honorable Kelli E. Fink, 

Magistrate 

Trial Court Cause No.

82C01-1804-F5-2860 

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1097 | October 24, 2019 Page 2 of 5

[1] Frankie Lynn Pollard, Jr., appeals his sentence for operating a motor vehicle 

after forfeiture of license for life as a level 5 felony and being an habitual 

offender. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 19, 2018, law enforcement detained Pollard after observing that he 

failed to stop at a traffic light. After discovering the status of his license, officers 

placed him under arrest. The State charged him with operating a motor vehicle 

after forfeiture of license for life as a level 5 felony and alleged that he was an 

habitual offender. A jury found him guilty of the level 5 felony, and he pled 

guilty to being an habitual offender pursuant to an agreement providing for a 

two-year enhancement. The court found the fact Pollard pled guilty to being an 

habitual offender and that the offense did not harm any property or person to be 

mitigating and his criminal history to be aggravating. It sentenced him to fourand-one-half years on the level 5 felony and enhanced the sentence by two years 

for being an habitual offender. 

Discussion

[3] Pollard claims that his sentence is inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 

7(B), that this Court should revise his sentence and impose the minimum 

sentence of one year for his level 5 felony and enhance the sentence by two 

years for being an habitual offender, and that an aggregate sentence of three

years would be appropriate. He argues that, although his trial counsel admitted 

his character was not good, he pled guilty to being an habitual offender, that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1097 | October 24, 2019 Page 3 of 5

“[a]ll in all, [he] received the maximum sentence under the law for a person 

committing a Level 5 felony,” and that the nature of his offense is 

unremarkable. Appellant’s Brief at 12. The State responds that Pollard has 

failed to show that the nature of the offense or his character supports a 

reduction of his sentence, that, contrary to his claim, he did not receive the 

maximum sentence, and that he has an extensive criminal history including a 

number of driving-related offenses and felonies. 

[4] Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “may revise a sentence authorized by 

statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, [we find] that the 

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

of the offender.” The burden is on the defendant to persuade the appellate 

court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. See Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 

1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 provides that a person who 

commits a level 5 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between one 

and six years with the advisory sentence being three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-

8 provides that the court shall sentence a person found to be an habitual 

offender to an additional fixed term that is between two and six years for a 

person convicted of a level 5 felony. Pollard received a sentence of four-andone-half years for his level 5 felony conviction which was enhanced by two 

years for being an habitual offender. 

[5] Our review of the nature of the offense reveals that Pollard operated a motor 

vehicle after forfeiture of license for life. Our review of the character of the 

offender reveals that he pled guilty to being an habitual offender pursuant to an 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1097 | October 24, 2019 Page 4 of 5

agreement providing that he would receive a two-year enhancement. The 

presentence investigation report (“PSI”) indicates that Pollard was adjudicated 

delinquent as a juvenile for criminal trespass and possession of a look-alike 

substance. According to the PSI, his adult criminal history includes numerous 

misdemeanor convictions, including at least three counts of operating a motor 

vehicle without ever having received a license, false informing, criminal 

trespass, failure to stop after an accident, public intoxication, driving while

suspended, disorderly conduct, resisting law enforcement, conversion, battery, 

and possession of marijuana. It also indicates that he received felony 

convictions for three counts of possession of cocaine or narcotic drug, forgery, 

operating a vehicle as an habitual traffic violator as a class D felony in 2010, 

operating a motor vehicle after lifetime forfeiture of driving privileges as a class 

C felony in 2012, and escape. It shows a revocation of his community 

corrections placement. The PSI also states that charges for possession of 

methamphetamine were filed in another cause in July 2018. The PSI indicates 

that Pollard reported that he began using alcohol at age twelve, began using 

marijuana at age ten, and became a daily smoker at age sixteen. It also

indicates that the result of the risk assessment tool places him in the very high 

risk to reoffend category. 

[6] After due consideration, we conclude that Pollard has not sustained his burden 

of establishing that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and his character.

[7] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Pollard’s sentence. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1097 | October 24, 2019 Page 5 of 5

[8] Affirmed. 

[9] Altice, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.