Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1842 | February 28, 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

Rory Gallagher

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Katherine Cooper

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Charles Anthony Winters,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

February 28, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1708-CR-1842

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Jose D. Salinas, 

Judge

The Honorable John Michael 

Christ, Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49G14-1701-CM-2529

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1842 | February 28, 2018 Page 2 of 6

[1] Charles Winters pled guilty to possession of marijuana as a Class A 

misdemeanor and possession of paraphernalia as a Class C misdemeanor and 

was sentenced to and aggregate sentence of 365 days, all suspended. On 

appeal, Winters argues his sentence is inappropriate.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On January 18, 2017, the State charged Winters with possession of marijuana 

as a Class A misdemeanor and possession of paraphernalia as a Class C 

misdemeanor. Winters’s case was transferred to the Marion County Drug 

Treatment Court and Winters then entered into the Marion County Drug 

Treatment Program, which required him to attend weekly hearings to monitor 

the progress of his substance abuse treatment. During this time, Winters was in 

the custody of the Marion County Community Corrections (MCCC) on home 

detention. 

[4] While participating in the drug treatment program, MCCC filed three notices of 

violation alleging that Winters failed to comply with monetary obligations, 

failed to report to MCCC as directed, and tampered with his monitoring device. 

On July 19, 2017, Winters voluntarily withdrew from the drug treatment 

program and pled guilty to both charges. Pursuant to a plea agreement, 

sentencing was left to the trial court’s discretion. The court held a hearing that

same day. During the sentencing portion, Winters argued that he lived in 

poverty, that he suffered from depression, anxiety, and had a learning disability, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1842 | February 28, 2018 Page 3 of 6

and that he had a substance abuse addiction. At the conclusion of the hearing, 

the trial court sentenced Winters to aggregate term of 365 days with all 

suspended to probation. As a condition of his probation, the trial court ordered 

Winters to undergo a mental health evaluation and treatment, substance abuse 

evaluation and treatment, and to submit to weekly drug testing. The court 

further stated:

I’m going to try to reduce the obstacles that are in place. I do 

think some supervision is important. ... You’ve done a lot here, 

Mr. Winters. You’ve really come a long way. [E]ven though 

you’re not successful with the completion of the program, you’re 

different than you were when you started. ... Everybody has put 

in a lot of work here, your attorneys have and you have. Okay. 

And so you’re doing better than you were before. There’s some 

things working against you. Hopefully you can overcome those. 

I wish you well as well. 

Transcript at 17-18. Winters now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as 

necessary.

Discussion & Decision

[5] Winters argues that his sentence is inappropriate. Winters asks this court to 

modify his period of probation so that it terminates upon successful completion 

of his substance abuse and mental health treatment.

[6] Article 7, section 4 of the Indiana Constitution grants our Supreme Court the 

power to review and revise criminal sentences. See Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 

1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 978 (2015). Pursuant to Ind. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1842 | February 28, 2018 Page 4 of 6

Appellate Rule 7, the Supreme Court authorized this court to perform the same 

task. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). Per App. R. 7(B), 

we may revise a sentence “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.” Inman v. State, 4 N.E.3d 190, 203 

(Ind. 2014) (quoting App. R. 7). “Sentencing review under Appellate Rule 7(B) 

is very deferential to the trial court.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 

2012). “Such 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).

[7] The determination of whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate “turns on 

our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the 

damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given 

case.” Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134, 1145 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Cardwell, 895 

N.E.2d at 1224). Moreover, “[t]he principal role of such review is to attempt to 

leaven the outliers.” Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. 2013). It is 

not our goal in this endeavor to achieve the perceived “correct” sentence in 

each case. Knapp, 9 N.E.3d at 1292. Accordingly, “the question under 

Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; 

rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” King v. 

State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (emphasis in original).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1842 | February 28, 2018 Page 5 of 6

[8] We recognize that Winters’s offenses were unremarkable. Winters was found 

in possession of a small amount of marijuana and he fully cooperated with the 

arresting officer. With regard to his character, we note that Winters has a 

modest criminal history, having accumulated two prior substance-related 

misdemeanor offenses in 2012.

1

 Although there is nothing particularly 

egregious about the nature of the offense and Winters’s character, we cannot 

say that a one-year, fully-suspended sentence is inappropriate.

[9] Indeed, the trial court acknowledged that Winters had overcome some 

obstacles, but observed that he continued to need supervision in order to be 

successful in completing the court-ordered probation conditions of mental 

health evaluation and treatment, substance abuse evaluation and treatment, and 

weekly drug testing. The court noted that the process was long and that all 

involved had worked hard to provide Winters with the resources he needs to 

overcome his addiction. Winters himself acknowledged the struggles he faces 

and will continue to face with regard to his addiction. That the probationary 

period extends beyond his successful completion of mental health and 

substance abuse treatment does not render his sentence inappropriate.

[10] Judgment affirmed. 

 

1 The record indicates that Winters has two prior misdemeanor convictions, at least one of which is a drug 

offense that was used to elevate his possession of marijuana offense to a Class A misdemeanor. Additionally, 

Winters recently pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine in another cause and was sentenced 

contemporaneously with this cause.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1842 | February 28, 2018 Page 6 of 6

[11] May, J. and Vaidik, C.J., concur.