Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1412-CR-434 | July 24, 2015 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

Marielena Duerring

South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Tyler G. Banks

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Marcus Stidhum,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

July 24, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

71A03-1412-CR-434

Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior 

Court;

The Honorable Jane Woodward 

Miller, Judge;

71D01-1407-F6-15

May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1412-CR-434 | July 24, 2015 Page 2 of 6

[1] Marcus Stidhum appeals his two-year sentence for Class A misdemeanor 

resisting law enforcement1 and Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic drug.

2

 

As the sentence was not inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On July 7, 2014, the police were dispatched to a convenience store on a report 

of an “unwanted person.” (Confidential Appendix (hereinafter “Conf. App.”)3

at 41.) An officer stopped Stidhum, who matched the description in the report. 

Stidhum identified himself as Michael Ward. The officer told Stidhum he 

would be issued a warning for criminal trespass, and while the officer was 

retrieving the warning forms, Stidhum ran. The officer caught Stidhum and 

found cocaine in his pocket. 

[3] The State charged Stidhum with Class B misdemeanor false informing,4 Class 

A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Level 6 felony possession of a 

narcotic drug. Stidhum pleaded guilty to resisting law enforcement and 

possession of a narcotic drug, and the State dismissed the false informing 

charge. The trial court sentenced Stidhum to one year for resisting law 

enforcement and two years for possession, to be served concurrently. 

 

1 Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1 (2014).

2 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6 (2014).

3 A confidential appendix contains documents and other information that may be excluded from public 

access pursuant to Ind. Administrative Rule 9(G) (2015). 

4 Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-3 (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1412-CR-434 | July 24, 2015 Page 3 of 6

Discussion and Decision5

[4] We may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and the character of the offender. Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 633 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)). We consider not only 

the aggravators and mitigators found by the trial court, but also any other 

factors appearing in the record. Roney v. State, 872 N.E.2d 192, 206 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2007), trans. denied. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating his 

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

[5] When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting 

point to determine the appropriateness of a sentence. Anglemyer v. State, 868 

N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g 878 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). The 

sentencing range for a level 6 felony is six months to two and one-half years, 

with an advisory sentence of one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7 (2014). A 

sentence for a Class A misdemeanor shall not exceed one year. Ind. Code § 35-

50-3-2. Stidhum received a two-year sentence for the felony and one year for 

the misdemeanor, and the court ordered them served concurrently.

[6] Regarding the nature of his offense, Stidhum was loitering at a convenience 

store. There were warrants for his arrest when he gave a false name to the 

 

5 Stidhum’s sole argument on appeal is that his sentence is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B). 

Nonetheless, he invites us to review the court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. (See Appellant’s Br. at 3.) 

We will not. See, e.g., King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (an inappropriate sentence 

analysis does not involve an argument that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the defendant). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1412-CR-434 | July 24, 2015 Page 4 of 6

police. He possessed cocaine and fled the scene. There is nothing particularly 

egregious about his offense.

[7] When considering the character of the offender, one relevant fact is the 

defendant’s criminal history. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2007). The significance of a criminal history in assessing a defendant’s 

character varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in 

relation to the current offense. Id. 

[8] Stidhum’s criminal history includes six felony convictions and two 

misdemeanor convictions. Although related mostly to substance abuse,6 they 

also include violent acts.7

 His probation had been revoked for failing to appear 

and for “reasons unknown.” (Conf. App. at 28, 30.) Stidhum has not shown 

he can abide by the rules of a lesser sentence, and even his counsel was 

concerned if Stidhum were not closely supervised, “we’ll be back here on a 

probation violation.” (Tr. at 24.) Stidhum also had been arrested for multiple 

offenses that were not prosecuted. See Cotto v. State, 829 N.E.2d 520, 526 (Ind. 

2005) (lengthy arrest record reveals “defendant has not been deterred even after 

having been subject to the police authority of the State”). 

 

6 These include manufacturing or delivery of controlled substances, three convictions of possession of a 

controlled substance, aggravated driving under the influence with license suspended or revoked, and driving 

under the influence.

7 These include domestic battery and battery.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1412-CR-434 | July 24, 2015 Page 5 of 6

[9] Stidhum requests an alternative placement to the Department of Correction. 

This is “an appropriate focus for application of our review.” Biddinger v. State, 

868 N.E.2d 407, 414 (Ind. 2007). However, trial courts are in the best position 

to know the feasibility and availability of such placements. Fonner v. State, 876 

N.E.2d 340, 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Stidhum was denied entrance to 

DuComb Center,

8 because they were not equipped to “dispers[e] medication for 

his anger management.” (Tr. at 20.) The trial court was aware of this and 

would presumably have known of other facilities and their capabilities. It 

declined to place Stidhum elsewhere because the available facility was “not 

willing to take [him] because of [his] history of violence.” (Id. at 26.) 

[10] We do not decide if “another sentence is more appropriate; rather the question is 

whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Fonner, 876 N.E.2d at 344. 

“A defendant challenging the placement of a sentence must convince us that the 

given placement is itself inappropriate.” Id. This he has not done. See id. (trial 

courts are equipped to know the availability and resources regarding placement 

in their locales).

[11] While there was nothing extraordinary about Stidhum’s offense, his criminal 

history indicates this two-year sentence is not inappropriate in light of his 

character. Accordingly, we affirm.

 

8 DuComb Center is “a community corrections project established in St. Joseph County (Ind.) in 1982[.]” 

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=153737. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1412-CR-434 | July 24, 2015 Page 6 of 6

[12] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Mathias, J., concur.