Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2897 | August 20, 2019 Page 1 of 10

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

Rodney T. Sarkovics

Carmel, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Caroline G. Templeton

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Dominic Jorman, Jr.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

August 20, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2897

Appeal from the Hamilton Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Paul A. Felix, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

29C01-1802-F3-1027

Mathias, Judge.

[1] Dominic Jorman, Jr. (“Jorman”) was convicted in Hamilton Circuit Court of 

Level 5 felony promoting prostitution. Jorman now appeals, arguing that the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2897 | August 20, 2019 Page 2 of 10

trial court abused its sentencing discretion in finding certain aggravating factors

and that his aggregate sentence of ten years is inappropriate in light of the 

nature of his offense and his character. 

[2] We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On February 7, 2018, Fishers Police Department Sergeant Greg Weesner 

(“Sergeant Weesner”) checked on a suspicious vehicle parked at a hotel parking 

lot. Jorman was inside the vehicle along with co-defendant, Amanda Ingle 

(“Ingle”). Sergeant Weesner observed marijuana in the center console of 

Jorman’s car and asked him to step out of the car. Jorman refused to exit the 

car. Officer Seth Goldstein (“Officer Goldstein”) also responded to the parking 

lot. When Officer Goldstein arrived, Ingle had exited the vehicle, but Jorman 

and Sergeant Weesner were engaged in a “scuffle.” Tr. p. 29. Officer Goldstein 

entered the rear driver’s side of the car and directed Jorman to place his hands 

on the top of his head. Jorman refused to comply and reached toward his 

waistband as if he was reaching for a weapon. Officer Goldstein and Sergeant 

Weesner attempted to handcuff Jorman, but they required the assistance of a 

third officer to subdue Jorman. Jorman was eventually handcuffed and placed 

under arrest. 

[4] During a subsequent search of Jorman’s car, officers located an iPhone that 

contained text messages consistent with prostitution such as, “I’m just wanting 

a good no condomn [sic] blow,” “May I ask how much is your rates,” “Give 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2897 | August 20, 2019 Page 3 of 10

me 45 min what motel,” and “Want a load on that face?” Ex. Vol., State’s 

Exhibit 1. Notebooks and handwritten notes with names, phone numbers, 

prices, and times were discovered in the car as well. A search of Jorman’s 

person recovered $675 in cash and a black digital scale. Ingle confirmed to the 

officers that Jorman was a “pimp” and a drug dealer. Appellants App. p. 21.

Officers secured a search warrant for the hotel room where Jorman and Ingle 

were staying and found forty-seven tablets of Xanax, one gram of cocaine, two 

grams of methamphetamine, three individually packaged bags of marijuana, 

copper wire mesh, a box of sandwich-sized Ziploc bags, and six hypodermic 

syringes.

[5] Further examination of Jorman’s phone established that at least seven women 

worked as prostitutes for Jorman. Officers interviewed one of the women, and 

she admitted she had been working as a prostitute for Jorman for approximately 

one month. The woman explained that Jorman would create advertisements for 

the women on a website called backpage.com. The post on the website would 

attract clients, and after the completion of the sexual activity, Jorman would 

come to the hotel room and collect between half and all of the money paid to 

the women. In return, Jorman provided the women working for him with a new 

syringe and a small amount of either heroin or methamphetamine each day. 

[6] On February 8, 2018, the State charged Jorman with dealing in a Schedule IV 

controlled substance, a Level 3 felony; dealing in a Schedule IV controlled 

substance, a Level 4 felony; possession of cocaine, a Level 5 felony; promoting 

prostitution, a Level 5 felony; possession of methamphetamine, a Level 5 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2897 | August 20, 2019 Page 4 of 10

felony; possession of a controlled substance, a Level 6 felony; dealing 

marijuana, a Level 6 felony; possession of methamphetamine, a Level 6 felony; 

possession of a controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor; dealing 

marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor; resisting law enforcement, a Class A 

misdemeanor; possession of marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor; and possession 

of paraphernalia, a Class C misdemeanor. On April 13, 2018, the State filed an

habitual offender enhancement against Jorman. 

[7] On October 18, 2018, under a plea agreement, Jorman pleaded guilty to the 

promoting prostitution count, a Level 5 felony, and admitted to the habitual 

offender count. As part of the plea agreement between Jorman and the State, 

the remaining charges were dismissed and the sentence to be imposed was to be 

determined by the trial court. A sentencing hearing was held on November 15, 

2018. The trial court sentenced Jorman to five years on the promoting 

prostitution count. Jorman’s sentence was enhanced by five years due to the 

habitual offender enhancement, for an aggregate sentence of ten years executed 

at the Department of Correction (“DOC”). Jorman now appeals. 

I. Sentencing

[8] Jorman claims that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him. 

Generally speaking, sentencing decisions are left to the sound discretion of the 

trial court, and we review the trial court's decision only for an abuse of this 

discretion. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on 

reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218. An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly 

against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2897 | August 20, 2019 Page 5 of 10

court. Id. The trial court may abuse its sentencing discretion in a number of 

ways, including: (1) wholly failing to enter a sentencing statement, (2) entering 

a sentencing statement that explains reasons for imposing the sentence but the 

record does not support the reasons, (3) the sentencing statement omits reasons 

that are clearly supported by the record and advanced for consideration, or (4) 

the reasons given in the sentencing statement are improper as a matter of 

law. Kimbrough v. State, 979 N.E.2d 625, 628 (Ind. 2012) (citing Anglemyer, 868 

N.E.2d at 490–91). The weight or value assigned to reasons properly found is 

not subject to an abuse of discretion review. Id. 

[9] Jorman contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it stated reasons 

that were not supported by the record and were improper as a matter of law. 

Specifically, Jorman argues that the trial court used the same facts to which he 

pleaded guilty to then enhance his sentence. We disagree. Pursuant to Indiana 

Code section 35-38-1-7.1(a)(2), a defendant’s criminal history and history of 

delinquent behavior is a statutory aggravating factor. In 1993, Jorman was 

adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent. Following that, Jorman was convicted as 

an adult in 1995, 1998, 2002, 2012, and 2015 for offenses including sexual 

misconduct with a minor and dealing in cocaine. Jorman was on pre-trial 

release for charges of dealing in a narcotic, possession of a narcotic, dealing 

methamphetamine, and possession of methamphetamine when he was arrested 

for the present offense. Jorman has five felony convictions and two 

misdemeanor convictions, and when placed on probation in other cases, his 

probation has been revoked twice. The record supports Jorman’s criminal 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2897 | August 20, 2019 Page 6 of 10

history as an aggravating factor. Also, in response to Jorman’s allocution 

statement that “the State has tried to make me as some drug dealer or pimp,”

Tr. p. 47, the trial court responded:

Whether or not you like the idea that the State is characterizing 

you as a pimp or not doesn’t really concern me. What concerns 

me is that you were committing the crime of Promoting 

Prostitution, that which is considered in this state to be a serious 

offense.

Tr. p. 55.

[10] The trial court’s statement does not support Jorman’s argument that the trial 

court used a required element of the crime of promoting prostitution to 

aggravate his sentence. Rather, the statement reflects the judgment that a Level 

5 felony is a serious offense because the General Assembly has defined 

promoting prostitution as a felony. 

[11] Next, Jorman argues that the trial court did not assign mitigating weight to his 

guilty plea. A trial court cannot abuse its discretion by allegedly failing to assign 

sufficient weight to a mitigating factor. Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 491. 

Additionally, a guilty plea may not be significantly mitigating when it does not 

demonstrate the defendant’s acceptance of responsibility or the defendant 

receives a substantial benefit in return for the plea. Anglemyer v. State, 875 

N.E.2d 218, 221 (Ind. 2007), opinion on reh’g. In exchange for Jorman’s guilty 

plea, the State dismissed twelve counts, including a Level 3 felony charge. 

Jorman attempted to blame others, mainly his co-defendant Ingle. Jorman also 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2897 | August 20, 2019 Page 7 of 10

minimized his responsibility, demonstrating to the judge that he pleaded guilty 

because “it was a good deal[.]” Tr. p. 56. Therefore, the trial court’s decision 

not to assign mitigating weight to Jorman’s guilty plea was not an abuse of 

discretion.

[12] Furthermore, even if the trial court had aggravated Jorman’s sentence because 

of the specific nature of the crime, it would not amount to an abuse of 

discretion. Officers were able to identify at least seven women that were a part 

of Jorman’s prostitution scheme. Jorman “paid” the women with small 

quantities of illegal drugs daily and took at least half the money the women 

received for committing acts of prostitution. Jorman’s involvement with 

promoting prostitution of multiple women is an appropriate aggravating factor 

and adds support to an aggravated sentence. 

II. Inappropriate Sentence

[13] Jorman also argues that his aggregate ten-year sentence is inappropriate in light 

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

Jorman argues that his sentence is inappropriate because he expressed remorse 

to the court, he deeply cares for his mother, and he is artistically talented. 

Jorman also claims that his sentence is inappropriate because the trial court 

ordered all ten years to be executed in the DOC when he could have been 

placed in community corrections because he was approved for work release. 

[14] Although a trial court may have acted within its lawful discretion in imposing a 

sentence, Article 7, Sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorize 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2897 | August 20, 2019 Page 8 of 10

independent appellate review and revision of sentences through Indiana

Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that a 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.” Reid v. State, 876 N.E.2d 1114, 1116 (Ind.

2007) (citing Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 491). The defendant has the burden of 

persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Id. Appellate review focuses on 

the aggregate sentence. Moyer v. State, 83 N.E.3d 136, 140 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), 

trans. denied. This Court does not look to see whether another sentence may be 

more appropriate; rather, the test is whether the sentence actually imposed is 

inappropriate. Id. Finally, although we have the power to review and revise 

sentences, “[t]he principal role of appellate 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).

[15] As discussed above, Jorman had at least seven women working for him as 

prostitutes, and Jorman would take half if not all of the money the women had 

been paid. When Jorman was arrested, officers found a methamphetamine 

pipe, cash, and a digital scale on his person. In the hotel room where Jorman 

was staying, officers found forty-seven tablets of Xanax, one gram of cocaine, 

two grams of methamphetamine, a plastic bag containing three smaller bags of 

marijuana, and a box of six hypodermic syringes. Jorman supplied the women 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2897 | August 20, 2019 Page 9 of 10

working for him with drugs to keep them under his control and involved in his 

prostitution scheme. 

[16] Concerning the character of the offender, Jorman has been convicted of five

felonies and two misdemeanors. A defendant’s criminal history is relevant to 

the consideration of the character of the offender. Garcia v. State, 47 N.E.3d 

1249, 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. The significance varies based on 

gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current offense. 

Id. Jorman’s criminal history demonstrates poor character. Many of Jorman’s 

prior offenses include drug-related offenses ranging from possession of cocaine 

to dealing in cocaine. Jorman’s own statement during the pre-sentencing 

investigation links his prostitution scheme to support his drug habit. Police 

found large amounts of drugs and paraphernalia on his person and in his hotel 

room. In addition, Jorman supplied the women who were working for him with 

drugs on a daily basis. Jorman’s past criminal history involved drug-related 

offenses, and the drug use is closely tied to the current offense. 

[17] Jorman has continued to abuse drugs following an opportunity for treatment. 

Due to his prior convictions for drug-related offenses, Jorman was required to

participate in substance abuse evaluation and treatment. Jorman participated in 

the purposeful incarceration program in the DOC following his 2012 conviction 

for dealing in cocaine. Despite the numerous opportunities to treat his 

substance abuse, Jorman continued to abuse illegal drugs, using 

methamphetamine daily. Jorman continued to supply illegal drugs to multiple 

women. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2897 | August 20, 2019 Page 10 of 10

[18] For all of these reasons, Jorman has not met his substantial burden of 

persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and the character of the offender.

Conclusion 

[19] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when sentenced Jorman to an 

aggregate ten-year sentence, executed in the DOC. Jorman’s sentence is also 

not inappropriate, in light of the nature of his offense and his character. 

Accordingly, we affirm Jorman’s sentence in all respects. 

Robb, J. and Pyle, J., concur.