Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1610-CR-2422 | March 29, 2017 Page 1 of 7

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

John T. Wilson

Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 

Attorney General of Indiana 

Ellen H. Meilaender

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Roy Anthony Peters,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

March 29, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

33A05-1610-CR-2422

Appeal from the 

Henry Circuit Court 

The Honorable 

Jack A. Tandy, Senior Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

33C01-1511-F2-6

Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1610-CR-2422 | March 29, 2017 Page 2 of 7

[1] Pursuant to a plea agreement, Roy Anthony Peters (“Peters”) pleaded guilty to 

Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine,1 and the trial court sentenced him 

to fifteen years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). 

Peters appeals his sentence, claiming that the trial court should have 

recommended that his sentence be served in DOC’s Purposeful Incarceration 

Program. 

[2] We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On November 6, 2015, the State charged Peters with Level 2 felony dealing in 

methamphetamine and five other drug-related offenses. In July 2016, Peters 

signed a plea agreement, agreeing to plead guilty to Level 2 felony dealing in 

methamphetamine in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining five counts 

and a sentence cap of fifteen years; otherwise, sentencing was open to the trial 

court. On September 22, 2016, after a factual basis was established, the trial 

court accepted Peters’s plea and sentenced him to fifteen years executed in 

DOC.

[4] At the sentencing hearing, Peters testified that he was “in charge of a restaurant 

management group,” and had “been steadily employed his whole life.” Tr. at 

24. He then stated that he had never been involved in substance abuse 

 

1

See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1610-CR-2422 | March 29, 2017 Page 3 of 7

evaluation or treatment. Peters testified that he was familiar with the DOC’s 

Purposeful Incarceration Program (“Purposeful Incarceration”), a substance 

abuse program that had not been available to Peters when he served time in

DOC in 2006.

2

 Peters asked the trial court to recommend that he participate in 

Purposeful Incarceration, thereby allowing the trial court to modify his sentence 

upon successful completion of the program. Id. at 34. 

[5] In response to the State’s questioning, Peters admitted to having a March 2004

conviction in Rush County for Class D felony possession of cocaine or 

methamphetamine or narcotic, a crime that was initially charged as Class B 

felony dealing.

3

 In September 2004, while out on bond for the possession

offense, Peters was charged with, and later convicted in Franklin County of,

Class B felony manufacturing or delivering methamphetamine. Peters also 

confirmed that, in the present case, he sold two and one-half grams of 

methamphetamine to a confidential informant on or about November 2, 2015.4 

 

2

In Marley v. State, 17 N.E.3d 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, our court, quoting from the Indiana 

Department of Correction website, explained: 

In 2009 the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) began a cooperative project with Indiana 

Court Systems called Purposeful Incarceration (P.I.). The Department works in collaboration 

with Judges who can sentence chemically addicted offenders and document that they will 

“consider a sentence modification” should the offender successfully complete an IDOC 

Therapeutic community. This supports the Department [of] Correction and the Judiciary to get 

addicted offenders the treatment that they need and work collaboratively to support their 

successful re-entry into society.

Marley, 17 N.E.3d at 338 n.1 (quoting http://www.in.gov/idoc/2798.htm (last visited Mar. 15, 2017).

3

Peters also conceded that he had been arrested four times for driving under the influence in the late 1980s 

and early 1990s. Tr. at 27-28. 

4

Peters was charged with this offense; however, this count was dismissed as part of the plea agreement in the 

instant case.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1610-CR-2422 | March 29, 2017 Page 4 of 7

Tr. at 28. Two days later, while officers were serving an arrest warrant for the 

November 2 offense, police found in Peters’s possession thirty-four grams of 

methamphetamine; Peters was then charged with Level 2 felony possession 

with intent to deliver methamphetamine, the instant offense. While out on 

bond, Peters was arrested in Franklin County and charged with maintaining a 

common nuisance and possession of marijuana.

5

[6] During closing remarks, the State asserted that Peters should not be 

recommended for Purposeful Incarceration, saying, “Purposeful Incarceration 

was never intended for drug dealers . . . . [Peters] is selling methamphetamine. 

He has admitted to that today and it happened twice on this case and he has 

had another case where he has either manufactured or sold. Drug dealers 

belong in jail, not in Purposeful Incarceration . . . .” Id. at 31. The trial court 

declined Peters’s request to place him in Purposeful Incarceration and 

sentenced him to fifteen years executed in DOC. Peters now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

[7] Peters “argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and 

of his character. Specifically, he asserts the Trial Court abused its discretion by not 

recommending he be referred to the [DOC’s] Purposeful Incarceration 

Program.” Appellant’s Br. at 6 (emphasis added). An inappropriate sentence 

analysis, however, does not involve an argument that the trial court abused its 

 

5 These two counts were also dismissed as part of the plea agreement in the instant case.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1610-CR-2422 | March 29, 2017 Page 5 of 7

discretion in sentencing the defendant. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 267 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2008). With respect to sentencing arguments, inappropriateness and 

abuse of discretion are different claims that are analyzed separately and should 

not be intermingled. See, e.g., Foutch v. State, 53 N.E.3d 577, 580 n.1 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2016); King, 894 N.E.2d at 267. 

[8] In his brief, Peters frames his issue as, and consistently argues that, the trial 

court abused its discretion when it did not order that his sentence be served in

Purposeful Incarceration. However, that issue is not subject to review for abuse 

of discretion. King, 894 N.E.2d at 267. Rather, “[t]he location where a 

sentence is to be served is an appropriate focus for application of our review and 

revise authority” under Appellate Rule 7(B). Id. (citing Biddinger v. State, 868 

N.E.2d 407, 414 (Ind. 2007)); Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 343 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2007). Although Peters briefly refers to Appellate Rule 7(B) and sets forth 

the standard of review for an inappropriateness claim, Appellant’s Br. at 6, he 

has not supported his inappropriateness claim with cogent argument or citation 

to authority as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). Accordingly, 

any argument regarding appropriateness is waived. See Davis v. State, 835 

N.E.2d 1102, 1113 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (observing that failure to present cogent 

argument or citation to authority constitutes waiver of issue for appellate 

review), trans. denied. 

[9] Waiver notwithstanding, our court has recognized, “It will be quite difficult for 

a defendant to prevail on a claim that the placement of his or her sentence is 

inappropriate.” Fonner, 876 N.E.2d at 343. “As a practical matter, trial courts 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1610-CR-2422 | March 29, 2017 Page 6 of 7

know the feasibility of alternative placements in particular counties or 

communities.” Id. “For example, a trial court is aware of the availability, 

costs, and entrance requirements of community corrections placements in a 

specific locale.” Id. at 343-44. Additionally, 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. Rose v. State, 36 N.E.3d 1055, 

1063 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). 

[10] Peters asked the trial court to place him in DOC’s Purposeful Incarceration. 

Citing to Peters’s numerous and significant drug-related convictions, the trial 

court denied Peters’s request. Tr. at 35-36. The trial judge explained to Peters: 

I am not going to recommend Purposeful Incarceration for you 

and I appreciate the State’s argument -- I don’t necessarily adhere 

to the distinction between dealers and possessors of drugs 

because I know that that line is very blurred out in the real world 

that you are trading and selling and sharing with associates and 

friends and so forth in addition to receiving money perhaps for 

drugs. My thought or thinking of this situation is that you have 

had several drug related convictions - significant ones. I don’t 

want to -- I am here on a temporary basis -- I don’t want to 

necessarily tie the hands of the future Judge to require that 

person to modify your sentence in the future. They can elect to 

do that if they choose to certainly, but if I put you in Purposeful 

Incarceration then if you complete that program then they have 

modify you [sic]. So, I don’t think based on your situation and 

your criminal history in particular that I want to do that. So, I 

am not going to grant your request to place you in the Purposeful 

Incarceration program but I will encourage you to take 

advantage of whatever treatment programs you have available to 

you while at the Department of Correction and certainly if you 

choose to file a request to review your sentence and request a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1610-CR-2422 | March 29, 2017 Page 7 of 7

modification in the future then the regular Judge of this Court 

can take a look at that and decide if they want to grant that.

Id. It was not inappropriate for the trial court to place Peters in DOC, and not 

in DOC’s Purposeful Incarceration program.

[11] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Barnes, J., concur.