Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-766 | August 31, 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

Donald C. Swanson, Jr.

Deputy Public Defender 

Fort Wayne, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Steven Hosler

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Joseph L. Arrington,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

August 31, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-766

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court 

The Honorable Wendy W. Davis, 

Judge 

Trial Court Cause No.

02D04-1811-F4-89

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-766 | August 31, 2020 Page 2 of 6

[1] Joseph L. Arrington appeals his sentence for two counts of dealing in cocaine

and asserts his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On August 22, 2018, Fort Wayne Police Detective John Greenlee worked with 

a confidential informant to arrange a controlled buy from Arrington. On that 

day, the confidential informant called Arrington and arranged to purchase 

cocaine from him at a gas station in Fort Wayne. Detective Greenlee drove the 

informant, who wore an electronic listening device, to the gas station, where the 

informant stood in front of the station, smoked a cigarette, and waited for 

Arrington. Detective Greenlee and other officers set up surveillance. Arrington 

arrived at the gas station, exited his vehicle, walked toward a sidewalk with the 

informant, and handed the informant cocaine, and the informant handed him 

the buy money. The substance was later determined to contain cocaine and to 

have a net weight of 1.12 grams. 

[3] On September 6, 2018, Detective Greenlee and the confidential informant 

arranged another controlled buy from Arrington. The informant contacted 

Arrington, and they again agreed to meet at the gas station. Detective Greenlee 

drove the informant to the gas station. Arrington arrived in a vehicle, the 

informant exited Detective Greenlee’s vehicle, entered the rear seat of 

Arrington’s vehicle, and gave the buy money to Arrington, and Arrington gave 

him cocaine. The substance was determined to contain cocaine and to have a 

net weight of 0.39 grams. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-766 | August 31, 2020 Page 3 of 6

[4] The State charged Arrington with: Count I, dealing in cocaine as a level 4 

felony; and Count II, dealing in cocaine as a level 5 felony. A jury found 

Arrington guilty on both counts. At sentencing, the court found the impact on 

Arrington’s family to be a mitigating factor. It found his criminal history to be 

a highly aggravating factor, stated his two counts for false informing showed 

disdain for law enforcement, found his escape from community supervision to 

be aggravating, noted he had his parole, suspended sentences, and work release 

placement revoked, and stated that prior attempts at rehabilitation have failed 

and the facts and circumstances of the case were aggravating. The court 

sentenced Arrington to twelve years with two years suspended to probation on 

Count I and five years on Count II and ordered the sentences served 

concurrently. 

Discussion

[5] Arrington claims his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offenses and his character. He argues that prison serves no rehabilitative 

purpose and does not provide him with appropriate treatment and that 

imposition of the advisory sentence and placement in community corrections 

would be a much more effective and appropriate sentence in addressing his 

addictions and mental health issues. 

[6] 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.” Under this rule, the burden is on the defendant to persuade 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-766 | August 31, 2020 Page 4 of 6

the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 

848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

[7] Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5 provides that a person who commits a level 4 felony 

shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two and twelve years with the 

advisory sentence being six years. 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. 

[8] Our review of the nature of the offense reveals that Arrington sold cocaine with 

a net weight of 1.12 grams to a confidential informant working with law 

enforcement on August 22, 2018, and sold cocaine with a net weight of 0.39 

grams to the confidential informant on September 6, 2018. 

[9] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that, according to the

presentence investigation report (“PSI”), Arrington stated he received Social 

Security disability and suffers from breathing problems, hand tension problems, 

shoulder problems, and panic attacks. He denied having ever been diagnosed 

with any mental illnesses. With respect to substance abuse, Arrington reported

that he began using marijuana at twenty-two years of age, that he used once per 

month until age forty-one, and that his last use was at age forty-seven. The PSI 

states that Arrington denied the use of cocaine and all other illegal substances. 

It states that he indicated he participated in substance abuse treatment while 

incarcerated in the Indiana Department of Correction in 2000 and at Brown

and Associates in Fort Wayne in 2003. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-766 | August 31, 2020 Page 5 of 6

[10] The PSI further reveals that Arrington, who was born in 1966, was given 

informal adjustments as a juvenile for shoplifting, possession of stolen property, 

assault and battery, and fleeing a police officer and was adjudicated delinquent

for assault and battery, truancy, burglary, gambling, and shoplifting. As an 

adult, he was convicted of burglary as a class C felony in 1984, robbery as a 

class C felony in 1985, operating without proof of financial responsibility as a 

misdemeanor in 1992, burglary as a class C felony in 1993, possession of 

cocaine or narcotic drug as a class D felony and possession of marijuana, hash 

oil, or hashish and resisting law enforcement as class A misdemeanors in 2002, 

false informing and unauthorized absence from home detention as 

misdemeanors in 2004, escape as a class D felony in 2005, “Never Receive 

License, Misdemeanor” in 2006, attempted possession of a controlled substance 

by subterfuge as a class D felony and leaving the scene of an accident as a 

misdemeanor in 2008, theft as a class D felony in 2011, “Resisting Law

Enforcement/Use of Vehicle” as a level 6 felony and false informing as a 

misdemeanor in 2014, driving while suspended as a class A misdemeanor in 

2017, and resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor in 2019. 

Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 23-24. The PSI states that Arrington has 

had his parole revoked once, his suspended sentence revoked three times, his 

work release placement revoked once, his probation revoked twice, his home 

detention placement modified once, and his home detention placement revoked 

once. The PSI also provides that Arrington’s overall risk assessment score 

using the Indiana Risk Assessment System places him in the high risk to 

reoffend category. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-766 | August 31, 2020 Page 6 of 6

[11] After due consideration and in light of his criminal history, we conclude that 

Arrington has not sustained his burden of establishing that his sentence is 

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

[12] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Arrington’s sentence. 

[13] Affirmed. 

Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.