Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1604-CR-851 | October 25, 2016 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

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Paula J. Beller

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Mark A. Dickmeyer,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

October 25, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

02A03-1604-CR-851

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

The Honorable Wendy W. Davis, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

02D04-1510-F6-1030

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1604-CR-851 | October 25, 2016 Page 2 of 6

Statement of the Case

[1] Mark A. Dickmeyer (“Dickmeyer”) appeals the sentence imposed by the trial 

court following his guilty plea to Level 6 felony residential entry.1 Dickmeyer 

argues that his two-year sentence is inappropriate. Concluding that Dickmeyer 

has failed to show that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm his sentence.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether Dickmeyer’s sentence is inappropriate pursuant to 

Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

Facts

[3] On October 25, 2015, Dickmeyer broke and entered the house of Kevin 

Patterson (“Patterson”). The State charged Dickmeyer with Level 6 felony 

residential entry. On February 16, 2016, Dickmeyer pled guilty as charged 

without a plea agreement. 

[4] At Dickmeyer’s sentencing hearing, he stated that he was an alcoholic and had 

been attending Alcoholics Anonymous for ten years. He also stated that he had 

“a problem with narcotics[.]” (Sent. Tr. 9). Dickmeyer claimed that he had 

“no memory” of breaking into Patterson’s house because he had been drinking 

 

1

IND. CODE § 35-43-2-1.5.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1604-CR-851 | October 25, 2016 Page 3 of 6

and “went into a black out[.]” (Sent. Tr. 7). He also stated that most of his 

prior offenses were either alcohol or drug related.

[5] When sentencing Dickmeyer, the trial court stated, in relevant part:

[A]s I look back on this matter, I see Mr. Dickmeyer as 

comprehensively outlined by the State not really honest to the 

Court this morning . . . I don’t see a lot of remorse this morning. 

He’s not even taking responsibility for breaking into a 

homeowner’s home. He’s saying that he blacked out and doesn’t 

remember it, but I’m sure during the plea all of his rights were 

given, and he made a factual basis. So since that time, I guess 

he’s changed his tune a little bit now that we are at sentencing. I 

note that [Dickmeyer] has one juvenile delinquency, as an adult 

he has five prior misdemeanor convictions, seven prior confirmed 

felony convictions, and as outline by the State, he’s been 

convicted of burglary twice, robbery twice, theft twice, and 

possession of a controlled substance. His prior criminal history 

concerns me greatly. I also take the facts and circumstances, in 

this case, and show that they are quite aggravating as I believe 

the homeowner was, if I read this right, he was sleeping. . . . 

That’s one of the worst nightmares I think anybody in their own 

home could face when sleeping. I’ll show prior attempts of 

rehabilitation have failed. His risk to reoffend, obviously, is at 

high risk.

(Sent. Tr. 14-15). Thereafter, the trial court imposed a two (2) year sentence to 

be executed at the Department of Correction. 2 Dickmeyer now appeals.

 

2 The trial court informed Dickmeyer that he would likely serve his sentence at the Allen County Jail and 

told him that he should sign up for the jail’s “fantastic substance abuse program[.]” (Sent. Tr. 18).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1604-CR-851 | October 25, 2016 Page 4 of 6

Decision

[6] Dickmeyer argues that his two-year sentence was inappropriate “in light of his 

remorse and acceptance of responsibility.” (Dickmeyer’s Br. 8). He contends 

that this Court should revise his sentence to an advisory sentence of one year.

[7] We may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and the character of the offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). The 

defendant has the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. 

Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). The principal role of a 

Rule 7(B) review “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). Whether a sentence is 

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.” Id. at 1224. 

[8] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge that 

the advisory sentence “is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an 

appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. 

Here, Dickmeyer pled guilty to Level 6 felony residential entry. A Level 6 

felony has a sentencing range of six (6) months to two and one-half (21⁄2) years

with an advisory sentence of one (1) year. I.C. § 35-50-2-7(b). The trial court

imposed a two (2) year sentence. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1604-CR-851 | October 25, 2016 Page 5 of 6

[9] The nature of Dickmeyer’s offense involved breaking and entering the home of 

the victim, who was sleeping at the time. The probable cause affidavit attached 

to the presentence investigation report (“PSI”) reveals that the victim woke up 

after hearing Dickmeyer in the house and then yelled at Dickmeyer, who fled 

by crawling out a window. 

[10] Turning to Dickmeyer’s character, we acknowledge that he pled guilty. 

However, as the trial court noted, Dickmeyer did not fully accept responsibility 

and, instead, offered his drinking as an excuse for his offense. He has a history 

of alcohol and drug abuse. Dickmeyer told the trial court that his criminal 

history was mainly alcohol related and failed to acknowledge his prior burglary, 

robbery, and theft convictions. At the time of sentencing, Dickmeyer was fiftysix years old and had amassed seven felony convictions, including two burglary 

convictions, two robbery convictions, two theft convictions, and one possession 

of a controlled substance conviction. He also had five prior misdemeanor 

convictions (including two convictions for criminal conversion, two operating 

while intoxicated convictions, and one public intoxication conviction) and a 

juvenile delinquency adjudication (which would have been 1st degree burglary 

if committed by an adult).

3

 Additionally, the PSI reveals that Dickmeyer was 

on parole from two separate theft convictions at the time of this current offense. 

 

3 The juvenile adjudication occurred in 1977.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1604-CR-851 | October 25, 2016 Page 6 of 6

The record before us reveals that Dickmeyer has a disregard for the law and has 

failed to reform. 

[11] Dickmeyer contends that the trial court should have placed him in the Hope 

Probation Program. The trial court, however, specifically addressed and denied 

that request at sentencing, explaining that “the thing about HOPE probation is 

that I have to have people before me that take responsibility constantly, that 

don’t lie, that take responsibility, [and] that really, really want to get help[.]” 

(Sent. Tr. 15-16).

[12] Dickmeyer has not persuaded us that his two-year sentence for his Level 6 

felony residential entry conviction is inappropriate. Therefore, we affirm the 

trial court’s sentence.

[13] Affirmed.

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