Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-503 | October 31, 2019 Page 1 of 9

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

Kimberly A. Jackson

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Megan M. Smith

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Derid Becker,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff,

October 31, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-503

Appeal from the Noble Circuit

Court

The Honorable Michael J. Kramer, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

57C01-1712-FD-4

57C01-1712-FD-5

57C01-1712-F6-50

Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-503 | October 31, 2019 Page 2 of 9

Case Summary and Issue

[1] While on probation for a prior conviction, Derid Becker was charged with 

possession of a hypodermic syringe, a Level 6 felony. Becker was accepted into 

the Noble County Problem-Solving Court program (“Drug Court”). Pursuant to 

Becker’s involvement in this program, he pleaded guilty to the charge and

sentencing was continued pending his participation. Becker was thereafter 

sanctioned by the trial court for a variety of Drug Court violations and was 

ultimately terminated from the program. Consequently, the trial court 

sentenced Becker to two years imprisonment for possession of a hypodermic 

syringe. Becker appeals his sentence, raising one issue for our review: whether 

the two-year sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and 

character of the offender. Concluding Becker’s sentence was not inappropriate, 

we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History 

[2] On November 20, 2012, Becker pleaded guilty to two counts of theft and was

sentenced to a total of two years imprisonment, with the sentence suspended to 

probation. Because of an existing sentence, Becker did not begin serving his 

probation until June 26, 2017. Four months later, during a probation search of 

Becker’s residence, a hypodermic syringe modified for the injection of drugs

was found under his couch. Becker admitted to his probation officer that the 

syringe belonged to him. The State filed a notice of probation violation in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-503 | October 31, 2019 Page 3 of 9

Becker’s theft cases and charged Becker with possession of a hypodermic 

syringe, a Level 6 felony.

[3] On December 14, 2017, Becker signed a participation agreement for Drug 

Court. Becker’s Drug Court participation agreement required Becker, among 

other things, to: 1) attend and successfully complete all treatment 

recommendations and programs; 2) abstain from alcohol and non-prescribed 

drugs; 3) submit to random drug tests; 4) attend four support meetings per week 

during phase 1 of Drug Court; and 5) reside at a “half-way facility” and serve 

home detention until further court order. Appellant’s Appendix, Volume II at 

124-28, 131. If Becker successfully completed Drug Court, the State agreed to 

dismiss the pending probation violations against him.

[4] Pursuant to this agreement, in December 2017 Becker pleaded guilty to 

possession of a hypodermic syringe, a Level 6 felony, and admitted to violating 

the terms of his probation in the previous theft cases. The trial court continued 

sentencing while Becker participated in the Drug Court program. 

[5] Over the next six months, the trial court found that Becker repeatedly violated 

Drug Court rules, sanctioning him ten times. Violations included missing 

required meetings, missing treatment appointments, neglecting to properly 

notify home detention officials of his travel plans, taking prescription medicine 

more frequently than prescribed, violating basic home detention requirements, 

failing to participate in community service as ordered, arriving late for 

probation appointments, and demonstrating belligerent behavior. During this 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-503 | October 31, 2019 Page 4 of 9

time period, Becker was also terminated from his half-way facility for behavior 

related to these violations.

[6] On June 25, 2018, Becker’s probation officer filed a Drug Court Violation 

Report alleging that Becker had violated the terms of his Drug Court 

participation agreement by being evicted from his half-way facility. The Drug 

Court team decided against recommending termination from the Drug Court at 

that time and instead recommended that Becker remain in custody until he 

could be placed in another half-way house and home detention. The trial court 

approved this recommendation. 

[7] After being released from jail into a new half-way house, Becker continued to 

commit violations. These new violations included failing to call the drug screen 

line and offering a diluted drug screen. Due to Becker’s repeated and numerous 

violations, on December 19, 2019, the Drug Court team recommended that 

Becker be terminated from the Drug Court Program. On January 7, 2019, the 

trial court revoked Becker’s participation in Drug Court and set a date for 

sentencing. 

[8] During the sentencing hearing, the trial court listed Becker’s criminal history 

and the fact he committed the offense while on probation for two other offenses 

as aggravating factors. Further, the trial court noted Becker’s numerous Drug 

Court violations prevented his participation in the program from being 

considered as a mitigating factor and further stated that it could find no other 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-503 | October 31, 2019 Page 5 of 9

mitigating factors. The trial court sentenced Becker to two years imprisonment. 

Becker now appeals his sentence.

Discussion and Decision 

I. Standard of Review

[9] We may review and revise criminal sentences pursuant to the authority derived 

from Article 7, section 6 of the Indiana Constitution. Indiana Appellate Rule 

7(B) empowers us to 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.” In reviewing a 

sentence, this court gives deference to the trial court’s sentencing decision 

because Rule 7(B) requires us to give “due consideration” to the decision and 

we recognize the unique perspective of the trial court in making sentencing 

decisions. Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d 858, 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Such 

deference should prevail unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in 

a positive light the nature of the offense and the defendant’s character. 

Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). Our principal role in Rule 

7(B) review is to “leaven the outliers.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 

(Ind. 2008).

[10] The defendant bears the burden to persuade this court that his or her sentence is 

inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). We may 

look to any factors appearing in the record in making such a determination. Reis 

v. State, 88 N.E.3d 1099, 1102 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). The question under Rule 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-503 | October 31, 2019 Page 6 of 9

7(B) analysis is “not whether another sentence is more appropriate” but rather 

“whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 

268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Whether a sentence is 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.” 

Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224. 

II. Inappropriate Sentence

[11] We begin with the advisory sentence in determining whether a sentence is 

inappropriate. Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. The advisory sentence for a Level 

6 felony is one year, with a minimum sentence of six months and a maximum 

sentence of two and one-half years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). Becker was 

sentenced to two years, which exceeds the advisory sentence, but falls short of 

the maximum sentence allowed. 

A. Nature of the Offense

[12] Becker was on probation for two separate theft convictions at the time he was 

charged with the instant offense. His probation for these crimes had started only 

four months prior to the syringe being found under his couch during a routine 

probation search. Becker was charged under Indiana Code section 16-42-19-18, 

which states: “A person may not possess with intent to: (1) violate this chapter

[dealing with the possession, use, or sale of legend drugs]; or (2) commit an 

offense [related to controlled substances] described in IC 35-48-4; a hypodermic 

syringe or needle or an instrument adapted for the use of a controlled substance 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-503 | October 31, 2019 Page 7 of 9

or legend drug by injection in a human being.” The statute does not require 

actual use of a drug. Rather, it requires the possession of a hypodermic needle 

adapted for the use of a controlled substance with the intent to commit a 

violation. See Cooper v. State, 171 Ind. App. 350, 359-60, 357 N.E.2d 260, 265 

(1976) (stating that in order in to sustain a conviction for possession of 

instruments adapted to the use of narcotics, the State must prove that the 

defendant was in possession of the instruments and had the intent to use them

illegally). Thus, Becker’s argument that he did not actually use an illegal 

substance with the modified syringe, and that this fact should inform our 

perspective of the nature of his offense, is moot. Further, the record makes clear 

that Becker had, in fact, modified a syringe to get high on Suboxone, Percocet, 

methamphetamine, and methadone. Becker’s probation officer stated that

Becker “was using, um, methamphetamine, Suboxone, methadone and 

Percocet none of which was prescribed to him[.]” Transcript, Volume 2 at 5.

Becker himself stated that his drugs of choice were opiates and Suboxone and 

upon obtaining a valid prescription, “I shot my own prescription.” Id. at 35.

[13] The nature of the offense, in light of Becker’s criminal history, demonstrated 

disregard for the law, and continued improper use of drugs (prescription or 

otherwise) provides an adequate foundation for the Becker’s sentence. 

B. Character of the Offender

[14] Becker argues that his character supports a reduction in his sentence. 

Specifically, Becker states that because he pleaded guilty to this crime, his 

sentence should be reduced from the near-maximum. The significance of a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-503 | October 31, 2019 Page 8 of 9

guilty plea as a mitigating circumstance varies from case to case. Anglemyer v. 

State, 875 N.E.2d 218, 221 (Ind. 2007) (opinion on reh’g). A guilty plea may not 

be significantly mitigating when it does not demonstrate the defendant’s 

acceptance of responsibility or when the defendant receives a substantial benefit 

in return for the plea. Id. 

[15] Here, the trial court specifically declined to find Becker’s guilty plea a 

mitigating factor. We agree that Becker’s guilty plea in this case does not reflect 

well upon his character because of his past criminal history, commission of an 

offense while on probation, and termination from Drug Court. 

[16] Becker further argues that his “violations of Drug Court rules are relatively 

minor[.]” Amended Brief of the Appellant at 17. Even to the extent this is true, 

the regular and recurring violation of Drug Court rules demonstrates Becker is 

unable to comply with even the most basic requirements imposed by law. The 

Drug Court team excused many of Becker’s violations until it became clear that 

he would be unable to comply for any extended period of time. Indeed, Becker 

was violating rules “almost on a weekly basis[.]” Tr., Vol. 2 at 228. Becker’s 

character does not merit sentence revision under Rule 7(B). 

[17] Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that Becker’s 

two-year sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and 

his character. We decline to revise it under Appellate Rule 7(B).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-503 | October 31, 2019 Page 9 of 9

Conclusion

[18] For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that a two-year sentence is not 

inappropriate in light of Becker’s offense and his character. Therefore, we 

affirm. 

[19] Affirmed.

Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.