Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-147 | July 16, 2020 Page 1 of 8

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

Linda L. Harris

Kentland, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Tina L. Mann 

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Steven Ray Struble,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

July 16, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-147

Appeal from the Jasper Superior 

Court

The Honorable Russell D. Bailey, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

37D01-1904-F4-294

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-147 | July 16, 2020 Page 2 of 8

Statement of the Case

[1] Steven Struble (“Struble”) appeals the advisory sentence imposed after he pled 

guilty to Level 4 felony sexual misconduct with a minor.1 Struble argues that: 

(1) the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him; and (2) his 

sentence is inappropriate. Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion and that his sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm Struble’s 

sentence.

[2] We affirm. 

Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced 

Struble.

2. Whether Struble’s sentence is inappropriate.

Facts

[3] During the summer of 2018, twenty-one-year-old Struble met fifteen-year-old 

A.Y. (“A.Y.”) through A.Y.’s mother’s boyfriend, Tyler Holloway 

(“Holloway”). Struble and Holloway spent time together working at A.Y.’s 

mother’s house. On occasion, Struble spent the night after working late. 

1

IND. CODE § 35-42-4-9.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-147 | July 16, 2020 Page 3 of 8

[4] At some point, Struble and A.Y. exchanged contact information and began to 

communicate with each other. In August 2018, Struble and A.Y. began to 

secretly date and have sexual intercourse. Struble, who was aware of A.Y.’s 

age based upon prior conversations, told A.Y. that it was okay to have sex 

because he trusted her. Whenever Struble spent the night, he waited until 

A.Y.’s mother fell asleep before he entered A.Y.’s bedroom and had sex with 

her. 

[5] Eventually, A.Y. told her school counselor that she had been having sex with 

Struble. The counselor informed the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) 

what A.Y. had reported, and DCS contacted law enforcement. During an 

investigation by the Rensselaer Police Department in October 2018, Struble 

admitted that: he had stayed the night at A.Y.’s home after one of Holloway’s 

races; he went to A.Y.’s bedroom; and they had sexual intercourse. 

[6] In April 2019, the State charged Struble with Level 4 felony sexual misconduct 

with a minor. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Struble pled guilty as charged. In 

exchange, the parties agreed to argue the sentence length with a cap of six 

years. At the ensuing sentencing hearing, the trial court noted Struble’s 

criminal history, which includes a juvenile adjudication for battery and a

conviction for Class A Misdemeanor furnishing alcohol to a minor, but found 

that the prior offenses “somewhat offset each other[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 21). The 

trial court then explained:

[I]t’s understandable the uh, defendant is, is a young man and uh, 

got a long life ahead of him. And uh, the uh – I do believe based 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-147 | July 16, 2020 Page 4 of 8

on the – the uh, that some measure should be accorded to the fact 

that he did take responsibility um, for his actions. And uh, and he 

has been uh, compliant up to this point uh, with uh, his 

requirements that have been imposed on him uh, Pre-Trial. Um, 

but at the same time, uh, the seriousness of the offense um, would 

– I would, I would say based on the seriousness of the offense, the 

– the 6 years is uh, is an adequate uh, sentence. 

(Tr. Vol. 2 at 21). Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Struble to the advisory 

sentence for a Level 4 felony, six (6) years in the Department of Correction with 

two (2) years suspended to probation. Struble now appeals. 

Decision

[7] On appeal, Struble contends that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion when 

it sentenced him; and (2) his sentence is inappropriate. We will review each 

argument in turn. 

1. Abuse of Discretion

[8] Struble contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him

on his Level 4 felony conviction. Sentencing decisions rest within the sound 

discretion of the trial court. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), 

clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). So long as the sentence is within 

the statutory range, it is subject to review only for an abuse of discretion. Id. 

An abuse of discretion will be found where the decision is clearly against the 

logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or the 

reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. Id. A trial 

court may abuse its discretion in a number of ways, including: (1) failing to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-147 | July 16, 2020 Page 5 of 8

enter a sentencing statement at all; (2) entering a sentencing statement that 

includes aggravating and mitigating factors that are unsupported by the record; 

(3) entering a sentencing statement that omits reasons that are clearly supported 

by the record; or (4) entering a sentencing statement that includes reasons that 

are improper as a matter of law. Id. at 490-91.

[9] Struble argues that the trial court abused its discretion because it “failed to enter 

a sentencing statement[.]” (Struble’s Br. 9). However, INDIANA CODE § 35-38-

1-1.3 provides that “[a]fter a court has pronounced a sentence for a felony 

conviction, the court shall issue a statement of the court’s reasons for selecting 

the sentence that it imposes unless the court imposes the advisory sentence for the 

felony.” (Emphasis added). Here, Struble was convicted of Level 4 felony 

sexual misconduct with a minor. The sentencing range for a Level 4 felony is 

“for a fixed term of between two (2) and twelve (12) years, with the advisory 

sentence being six (6) years.” I.C. § 35-50-2-5.5. The trial court sentenced 

Struble to the advisory sentence of six (6) years and suspended two (2) years to 

probation. Because the trial court sentenced Struble to the advisory sentence 

for his felony conviction, it was not required to issue a sentencing statement. 

See I.C. § 35-38-1-1.3. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion 

when it sentenced Struble.2 

2

Struble also argues that it is unclear whether the trial court considered his guilty plea as a mitigating factor. 

We disagree. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that “some measure should be accorded to the 

fact that [Struble] did take responsibility um, for his actions.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 21). Based upon the record, it is 

unlikely that the trial court failed to consider Struble’s guilty plea as a mitigator. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-147 | July 16, 2020 Page 6 of 8

2. Inappropriate Sentence 

[10] Struble next contends that his six-year sentence with two years suspended to 

probation is inappropriate. Indiana 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. The defendant bears the 

burden of persuading this Court 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). “Appellate Rule 7(B) analysis is not 

to determine whether another sentence is more appropriate but rather whether 

the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 

(Ind. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), reh’g denied. 

Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate turns on 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.

[11] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, the advisory sentence is 

the starting point that the General Assembly has selected as an appropriate 

sentence for the crime committed. Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. As explained 

above, the trial court sentenced Struble to six (6) years, which is the advisory 

sentence. We further note that “a defendant bears a particularly heavy burden 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-147 | July 16, 2020 Page 7 of 8

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. On appeal, Struble has not met the particularly heavy 

burden he faces. 

[12] Turning to the nature of Struble’s offense, this Court has recognized that the 

nature of the offense is found in the details and circumstances of the 

commission of the offense and the defendant’s participation. Perry v. State, 78 

N.E.3d 1, 13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). Here, Struble secretly dated fifteen-year-old 

A.Y. Whenever Struble spent the night, he waited until A.Y.’s mother fell 

asleep to enter A.Y.’s room and had sex with her. Struble’s sentence is not

inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense. 

[13] When considering the character of the offender, we recognize, as the trial court 

did, that Struble was twenty-one, took responsibility, and was compliant with 

pretrial release. However, Struble secretly dated and had sex with a fifteenyear-old girl on multiple occasions. He knew she was underage, and he 

manipulated her into thinking it was okay for her to have sex with him. 

Furthermore, Struble has one prior adult conviction for Class A Misdemeanor 

furnishing alcohol to a minor, which reflects poorly on his character. See Moss 

v. State, 13 N.E.3d 440, 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (holding that even a minor 

criminal record reflects poorly on a defendant’s character). Indeed, Struble’s

character seems to be punctuated with an inability to recognize what constitutes 

appropriate contact with minors.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-147 | July 16, 2020 Page 8 of 8

[14] Accordingly, Struble has failed to persuade us that the nature of his sexual 

misconduct with a minor offense or his character makes his six-year sentence 

with two years suspended to probation inappropriate. Therefore, we affirm the 

sentence imposed by the trial court.

[15] Affirmed. 

Bradford, C.J., and Baker, J., concur.