Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1562 | January 17, 2020 Page 1 of 6

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

Ronald J. Moore

The Moore Law Firm, LLC

Richmond, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Angela N. Sanchez

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Roy Truman Nelson,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

January 17, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-1562

Appeal from the Wayne Superior 

Court

The Honorable Charles K. Todd, 

Jr. Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

89D01-1903-F6-175

May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1562 | January 17, 2020 Page 2 of 6

[1] Roy Truman Nelson appeals his sentence for Level 6 felony resisting law 

enforcement.

1

 He argues his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of 

his offense and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On March 9, 2019, Officer Tyler Smith and Officer Tyler Shoemaker of the 

Richmond Police Department received a dispatch regarding a possible domestic 

disturbance at Nelson’s residence. The dispatch relayed that Nelson had left his 

house in a burgundy Kia Optima, that Nelson was intoxicated, and that Nelson

did not have a valid driver’s license. The officers located Nelson’s vehicle and 

began to follow him in their police car. When the officers got behind Nelson’s 

vehicle, Nelson immediately performed a u-turn. The officers also made a uturn and activated their emergency lights and siren. However, Nelson did not 

pull over. He continued to drive for approximately one mile, and then he 

parked in the driveway of his house. The officers exited their car and 

repeatedly ordered Nelson to exit his vehicle. Nelson exited his vehicle, but he 

disobeyed the officers’ commands to face away from them, to put his hands in 

the air, and to walk backward toward them. At one point, Officer Smith 

deployed his taser, but it was not effective. Eventually, the officers handcuffed

Nelson.

1 Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1 (2016).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1562 | January 17, 2020 Page 3 of 6

[3] The State charged Nelson with Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement based 

on Nelson’s act of fleeing from police officers in a vehicle after the officers 

activated their patrol vehicle’s lights and siren. On May 16, 2019, Nelson pled 

guilty without a plea agreement. The trial court accepted his plea and entered 

the conviction. On June 11, 2019, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. On 

June 26, 2019, the trial court sentenced Nelson to an executed term of one and

one-half years in the Wayne County Jail. The trial court found two aggravating 

circumstances: (1) Nelson’s significant criminal history, and (2) Nelson’s 

commission of the instant offense while on probation for a crime he committed 

in Virginia. Additionally, the trial court found Nelson’s acceptance of 

responsibility and expression of remorse to be a mitigating circumstance.

Discussion and Decision

[4] We “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of 

the trial court’s decision, [we determine] the sentence is inappropriate in light of 

the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Ind. Appellate 

Rule 7(B). Our role in reviewing a sentence pursuant to Appellate Rule 7(B) 

“should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding 

principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing 

statutes, but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. 

State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). “The defendant bears the burden of 

persuading this court that his or her sentence is inappropriate.” Kunberger v. 

State, 46 N.E.3d 966, 972 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “Whether a sentence is 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1562 | January 17, 2020 Page 4 of 6

inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity 

of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad of other factors that 

come to light in a given case.” Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2014).

[5] In assessing the nature of an offense, “the advisory sentence is the starting point 

for determining the appropriateness of a sentence.” Pelissier v. State, 122 N.E.3d 

983, 990 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. We assess whether a particular 

offense is different from the “typical” offense accounted for by the legislature in 

setting the advisory sentence. See Rich v. State, 890 N.E.2d 44, 54 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2008), trans. denied. A Level 6 felony is punishable by a term of imprisonment 

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

being one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7. Therefore, Nelson’s sentence is above 

the advisory sentence but below the maximum sentence. Nelson acknowledges 

“his offense was serious in nature and put himself and police in danger.” 

(Appellant’s Br. at 15.) We agree and cannot say there is anything about his 

offense that makes it more or less egregious than the typical act of using a 

vehicle to resist law enforcement. See Rich, 890 N.E.2d at 54 (holding 

defendant’s offense was not more or less egregious than a typical burglary).

[6] Nelson argues his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character because he 

is remorseful and is capable of being reformed. Nelson notes he was employed 

prior to his arrest and he hopes to return to work when released. In assessing a 

defendant’s character, one relevant factor is the defendant’s criminal history. 

Garcia v. State, 47 N.E.3d 1249, 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1562 | January 17, 2020 Page 5 of 6

Nelson’s criminal history is significant. Nelson has seven prior felony 

convictions, including convictions of robbery with a dangerous weapon and 

assault by strangulation in North Carolina, and eleven misdemeanor 

convictions, including a previous resisting law enforcement conviction. His 

record includes five probation violations. That Nelson committed the current 

offense while on probation also reflects poorly on his character. See Eisert v. 

State, 102 N.E.3d 330, 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (stating defendant’s repeated 

violations of the terms of pre-trial release and court orders “does not suggest 

[he] is a person who respects the law or the court’s authority”), trans. denied. 

[7] The trial court considered Nelson’s expression of remorse at sentencing. 

Nelson’s employment prior to incarceration and his desire to work when 

released from incarceration do not render his sentence inappropriate. See

Holmes v. State, 86 N.E.3d 394, 399 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (stating “many people 

are gainfully employed; therefore, a defendant’s employment is not necessarily 

a mitigating factor”), trans. denied. Therefore, in light of his offense and 

character, Nelson’s sentence is not inappropriate. See Garcia, 47 N.E.3d at 1252 

(holding sentence above the advisory sentence was not inappropriate given 

defendant’s significant criminal history).

Conclusion

[8] Nelson’s sentence is not inappropriate given the nature of his offense and his 

character, particularly his significant criminal history and his status as a 

probationer at the time of the instant offense. Accordingly, we affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1562 | January 17, 2020 Page 6 of 6

[9] Affirmed.

Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.