Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 87A01-1510-CR-1739 | May 18, 2016 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

Brett M. Roy

Roy Law Office

Boonville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Richard C. Webster

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Michael Joseph Mueller,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

May 18, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

87A01-1510-CR-1739

Appeal from the Warrick Superior 

Court

The Honorable Robert R. 

Aylsworth, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

87D02-1503-F6-000089

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 87A01-1510-CR-1739 | May 18, 2016 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary

[1] Michael Joseph Mueller (“Mueller”) challenges the two-year sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea to Auto Theft, a Level 6 felony.1 He presents the sole 

issue of whether the trial court abused its sentencing discretion by ignoring 

appropriate mitigating circumstances. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On July 6, 2015, Mueller pled guilty to Auto Theft, after acknowledging that he 

had stolen the vehicle of Carolyn Remfry on or about March 10, 2015. Mueller 

was sentenced to serve two years in the Indiana Department of Correction, with 

a recommendation that he be placed in a minimum security facility and be 

evaluated for participation in a therapeutic communities program. Mueller 

appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[3] Upon conviction of a Level 6 felony, Mueller faced a sentencing range of 

between six months and two and one-half years, with one year as the advisory 

term. I.C. § 35-50-2-7(b). In imposing the two-year term, the trial court stated: 

“I’m going to show that th[e] sentence is warranted and justified based upon 

your prior record, including misdemeanor and felony record as dictated or 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2.5(b)(1). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 87A01-1510-CR-1739 | May 18, 2016 Page 3 of 5

disclosed by the July 14, 2015 report to the court.” (Tr. at 30.) Mueller now 

argues that “the court failed to give proper weight to the mitigating factors in 

this action[.]” Appellant’s Brief at 4. According to Mueller, the trial court 

should have recognized his decision to plead guilty, his expression of remorse, 

and his medical condition – severe seizures – to be mitigating circumstances. 

[4] “So long as the sentence is within the statutory range, it is subject to review 

only for abuse of discretion.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 

2007), clarified on other grounds, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007) (Anglemyer II). This 

includes the finding of an aggravating circumstance and the omission to find a 

proffered mitigating circumstance. Id. at 490-91. When imposing a sentence 

for a felony, the trial court must enter “a sentencing statement that includes a 

reasonably detailed recitation of its reasons for imposing a particular sentence.” 

Id. at 491.

[5] The trial court’s reasons must be supported by the record and must not be 

improper as a matter of law. Id. However, a trial court’s sentencing order may 

no longer be challenged as reflecting an improper weighing of sentencing 

factors.2 Id. A trial court abuses its discretion if its reasons and circumstances 

 

2

In addition to making an unavailable argument that the trial court failed to properly weigh sentencing 

factors, Mueller’s brief also references an improper and obsolete standard for appellate revision of sentences 

upon independent review. Mueller states that this Court “may revise a sentence if it is ‘manifestly 

unreasonable in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.’” Appellant’s Brief at 7 

(quoting Thacker v. State, 709 N.E.2d 3, 10 (Ind. 1999)). We remind counsel that, where independent 

appellate review and revision is sought pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(b), the standard is one of 

“inappropriateness.” 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 87A01-1510-CR-1739 | May 18, 2016 Page 4 of 5

for imposing a particular sentence are clearly against the logic and effect of the 

facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual 

deductions to be drawn therefrom. Hollin v. State, 877 N.E.2d 462, 464 (Ind. 

2007).

[6] An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating factor 

requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is not only 

supported by the record but also that the mitigating evidence is significant. 

Anglemyer II, 875 N.E.2d at 220-21. The trial court is not obligated to explain 

why it did not find a particular circumstance to be significantly mitigating. 

Sherwood v. State, 749 N.E.2d 36, 38 (Ind. 2001). 

[7] Mueller did not present to the trial court any argument upon a particular 

mitigating circumstance. Nonetheless, Mueller’s guilty plea was readily 

apparent. Although a trial court should be “inherently aware of the fact that a 

guilty plea is a mitigating circumstance,” a guilty plea is not always a significant 

mitigating circumstance. Francis v. State, 817 N.E.2d 235, 237 n.2 (Ind. 2004). 

A guilty plea does not rise to the level of significant mitigation where the 

evidence against the defendant is such that the decision to plead guilty is 

“purely pragmatic.” Abrajan v. State, 917 N.E.2d 709, 713 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). 

Here, Meueller was found in possession of the stolen vehicle. His decision to 

plead guilty could reasonably be considered pragmatic. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 87A01-1510-CR-1739 | May 18, 2016 Page 5 of 5

[8] As for the remaining claims of mitigation, the trial court will not be found to 

have abused its discretion by failing to find a mitigator not advanced for 

consideration. Anglemyer II, 875 N.E.2d at 221.

Conclusion

[9] Mueller has not shown that the trial court abused its sentencing discretion. 

[10] Affirmed.

Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.