Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A04-1710-CR-2380 | January 24, 2018 Page 1 of 4

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

Cara Schaefer Wieneke

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Christina D. Pace

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana 

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Matthew R. Frazier,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

January 24, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

70A04-1710-CR-2380

Appeal from the Rush Superior

Court

The Hon. Brian D. Hill, Judge

Trial Court Cause No. 

70D01-1604-F4-302

Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A04-1710-CR-2380 | January 24, 2018 Page 2 of 4

Case Summary

[1] In early 2016, Appellant-Defendant Matthew Frazier sold methamphetamine to 

a confidential informant and ultimately pled guilty to Level 4 felony dealing in 

methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced Frazier to an advisory term of six 

years of incarceration, with two suspended to probation. Frazier contends that 

his sentence is inappropriately harsh. Because we disagree, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 9, 2016, Frazier sold 1.3 grams of methamphetamine to a 

confidential informant for $130.00 in Rush County. On April 28, 2016, the 

State charged Frazier with Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 6 

felony methamphetamine possession, and Level 6 felony dealing in a controlled 

substance. On September 11, 2017, Frazier pled guilty to Level 4 felony dealing 

in methamphetamine, and the trial court sentenced him to six years of 

incarceration, with two suspended to probation. 

Discussion and Decision

[3] Frazier contends that his sentence is inappropriately harsh. We “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.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). 

“Although appellate review of sentences must give due consideration to the trial 

court’s sentence because of the special expertise of the trial bench in making 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A04-1710-CR-2380 | January 24, 2018 Page 3 of 4

sentencing decisions, Appellate Rule 7(B) is an authorization to revise sentences 

when certain broad conditions are satisfied.” Shouse v. State, 849 N.E.2d 650, 

660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied (citations and quotation marks omitted). 

“[W]hether we regard a sentence as appropriate at the end of the day 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 v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). In addition to the 

“due consideration” we are required to give to the trial court’s sentencing 

decision, “we understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court 

brings to its sentencing decisions.” Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The trial court sentenced Frazier to six years of 

incarceration for Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine, with two 

suspended to probation. Six years is the advisory sentence for a Level 4 felony. 

See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5. 

[4] The nature of the offense is that Frazier sold 1.3 grams of methamphetamine to 

a confidential informant. While this offense does not seem to be particularly 

heinous in terms of drug deals, Frazier’s six-year, advisory sentence already 

reflects that, even before one considers the two years suspended to probation. 

While the nature of Frazier’s offense might not support the imposition of an 

enhanced sentence, it does not follow that it must support a reduced sentence. 

[5] As for Frazier’s character, his lengthy criminal history does not speak well of 

him. Frazier, who was thirty-two years old at the time of sentencing, has had 

eight prior misdemeanor convictions, including public intoxication, two 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A04-1710-CR-2380 | January 24, 2018 Page 4 of 4

convictions for possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, and 

possession of methamphetamine. Frazier also has five prior felony convictions, 

including theft, maintaining a common nuisance, and neglect of a dependent. 

The offense to which Frazier pled guilty is similar to most of the offenses for 

which he has already been convicted, albeit more serious: Frazier has

progressed from mere possession of illegal drugs to dealing them. Despite 

Frazier’s many criminal convictions, he has not chosen to reform himself, and 

in fact, the severity of his crimes seems to be increasing. Frazier has failed to 

establish that his six-year, advisory sentence (with two years suspended to 

probation) is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character. 

[6] We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.