Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-388 | June 21, 2018 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

Michael P. DeArmitt

Columbus, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Michael Gene Worden

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Nino M. Pullins,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

June 21, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-388

Appeal from the Bartholomew 

Superior Court

The Honorable James D. Worton, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

03D01-1707-F3-3737

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-388 | June 21, 2018 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary

[1] Nino M. Pullins (“Pullins”) pleaded guilty to Armed Robbery, as a Level 3 

felony.1 He now appeals, arguing that his sentence is inappropriate.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Based on events that occurred on or about July 4, 2017, the State charged 

Pullins with Armed Robbery, as a Level 3 felony. Pullins and the State reached 

a plea agreement whereby (1) Pullins would plead guilty as charged; (2) the 

executed portion of his sentence would not exceed nine years; and (3) the State 

would not object to the court recommending participation in the Purposeful 

Incarceration program. Pullins pleaded guilty pursuant to the agreement.

[4] When interviewed for a pre-sentence investigation report—and again at his 

sentencing hearing on January 16, 2018—Pullins described the events leading 

up to the offense. Pullins explained that he and friends were traveling back 

from a college party in Kentucky; Pullins was a passenger in the vehicle. The 

group needed gas money, so they went to a gas station and drove up next to a 

man. Through an open window, a female passenger told the man to give them 

his phone, cards, and money. Pullins then pointed a loaded gun at the man, 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-388 | June 21, 2018 Page 3 of 6

who surrendered his phone and approximately $10. Pullins admitted that he 

was under the influence of Xanax and methamphetamine at the time.

[5] The trial court ultimately imposed a sentence of nine years executed in the 

Indiana Department of Correction. In orally pronouncing the sentence, the 

court explained that it did not think that participation in the Purposeful 

Incarceration program was appropriate, but that it would consider allowing 

participation in the program upon a future request for sentence modification.

[6] Pullins now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Pursuant to Article 7 of the Indiana Constitution, as implemented by Indiana 

Appellate Rule 7(B), an appellate court “may revise a sentence authorized by 

statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds 

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

character of the offender.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). The appropriateness of a 

sentence “turns on ‘myriad . . . factors that come to light in a given case.’” 

Taylor v. State, 86 N.E.3d 157, 165 (Ind. 2017) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 

N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008))). Moreover, the question is not whether a 

different sentence would be more appropriate; the question is whether the 

sentence imposed is inappropriate. Helsley v. State, 43 N.E.3d 225, 228 (Ind. 

2015). As “sentencing is principally a discretionary function,” Cardwell, 895 

N.E.2d at 1222, we must give considerable deference to the court’s decision—
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-388 | June 21, 2018 Page 4 of 6

and that deference “should prevail unless overcome by compelling evidence 

portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by 

restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant’s character (such as 

substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character),” Stephenson 

v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). Ultimately, the principal role of our 

review “is to attempt to leaven the outliers.” McCain v. State, 88 N.E.3d 1066, 

1067 (Ind. 2018) (per curiam).

[8] Regarding the offense, Pullins received the advisory sentence of nine years. See 

I.C. § 35-50-2-5 (providing that the sentencing range for a Level 3 felony is 

between three years and sixteen years, with an advisory sentence of nine years). 

Because the advisory sentence is the starting point that the legislature “has

selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed,” Childress v. State, 

848 N.E.2d 1073, 1081 (Ind. 2006), the appellant “bears a particularly heavy 

burden in persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate when the trial court 

imposes the advisory sentence,” Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1089 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. Nonetheless, Pullins does not challenge the length 

of his sentence. Rather, he argues that his sentence is inappropriate because the 

court imposed a fully executed sentence. Pullins asserts that he should have 

received a partially suspended sentence and treatment for substance abuse. In 

so arguing, Pullins focuses on his relatively young age—twenty when he 

committed the offense—and his abuse of substances from the age of thirteen.

[9] As to the nature of the offense, Pullins argues that there is nothing particularly 

egregious “about the actual facts of [the] case that would set it apart as being 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-388 | June 21, 2018 Page 5 of 6

more heinous or aggravated than any other Armed Robbery.” Appellant’s Br. 

at 9. However, we observe that Pullins was not just armed during the robbery; 

rather, Pullins pointed a loaded gun at the victim while under the influence of 

Xanax and methamphetamine.

[10] As to the character of the offender, we acknowledge that Pullins is a young 

adult who expressed remorse at sentencing, asked for treatment, and shared

goals to further his education. However, Pullins admitted that he had never

previously considered treatment for substance abuse, despite having the benefit 

of a strong family support system. Moreover, although Pullins does not have a 

lengthy criminal record—he has a sole misdemeanor conviction for Illegal 

Consumption of an Alcoholic Beverage—Pullins has had other contacts with 

the criminal justice system. Most notably, Pullins was incarcerated for more 

than two months in 2015 due to serious charges that were later dismissed. 

Despite having had that daily reminder of the potential consequences of 

unlawful behavior—a period during which Pullins claimed he was sober—

Pullins admitted that he “never thought about treatment even when [he] was in 

jail.” Tr. at 33. After his release, Pullins was not deterred from engaging in 

unlawful behavior; he began using drugs, decided to obtain a gun, and carried 

the gun while under the influence of multiple substances. Pullins then broke 

multiple jail rules during the pendency of this case.

[11] In imposing the nine-year executed sentence and declining to recommend 

placement in the Purposeful Incarceration program, the court acknowledged

Pullins’s substance abuse issues, but noted that it did not “believe that substance 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-388 | June 21, 2018 Page 6 of 6

abuse has caused [him] to pull a gun on someone and commit a robbery against 

them.” Tr. at 39. After due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we are 

not persuaded that the nine-year executed sentence is inappropriate in light of 

the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.

[12] Affirmed.

Crone, J., and Brown, J., concur.