Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-69 | July 16, 2019 Page 1 of 5

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

Christopher L. Clerc

Columbus, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General

Lauren A. Jacobsen

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jarred Parton,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

July 16, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-69

Appeal from the Bartholomew 

Circuit Court

The Honorable Kelly S. Benjamin, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

03C01-1802-F6-930

03C01-1803-F6-1163

Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-69 | July 16, 2019 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary

[1] Jarred Parton appeals his five-year aggregate sentence for level 6 felony 

possession of methamphetamine and level 6 felony failure to return to lawful 

detention. Parton asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to 

find his guilty plea a mitigating circumstance. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On February 19, 2018, Columbus Police Department Officer Travis Harbough

arrested Parton, who had absconded from a work release program ten days 

prior. In a search of his person incident to his arrest, Officer Harbough found 

two bags that contained marijuana and methamphetamine.

[3] The State charged Parton with level 6 felony failure to return to lawful 

detention in cause number 03C01-1803-F6-1163, and with level 6 felony 

possession of methamphetamine and class A misdemeanor possession of 

marijuana in cause number 03C01-1802-F6-930. Parton pled guilty in both 

actions. In return for the plea, the State dropped the class A misdemeanor

charge in cause 930 and stipulated that Parton have his sentence under an 

unrelated cause number be modified by the court to time served.

[4] The trial court held a sentencing hearing in which Parton offered testimony. 

During argument, Parton made no mention of any mitigating circumstances 

and did not discuss his guilty plea. The trial court found no mitigators and 

seven aggravators: (1) Parton’s criminal history; (2) multiple failures of 

supervisory sentences; (3) Parton was on probation when these offenses 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-69 | July 16, 2019 Page 3 of 5

occurred; (4) Parton has been offered and failed multiple treatment programs; 

(5) Parton had multiple jail rule violations while this case was pending; (6) 

Parton continued to use drugs in jail; and (7) Parton wants to stay a member of 

the Aryan Brotherhood. The trial court told Parton, “The aggravators far 

outweigh any mitigators.” Tr. Vol 2 at 52 (emphasis added). It sentenced Parton 

to 912 days on each count, to be served consecutively, all executed. The trial 

court dismissed the class A misdemeanor charge under cause number 930, and 

also recommended that Parton be sent to a facility that can evaluate him for 

mental health and substance abuse issues. This appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Parton argues that the trial court erred by failing to consider his guilty plea as a 

mitigating factor.

1 “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.” Singh v. State, 40 N.E.3d 981, 987 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2015), trans. denied (2016). “An abuse of discretion occurs if 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.” Anglemeyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007) (quotation 

marks omitted), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218. 

 

1

Parton also requests that we “reweigh the aggravating and mitigating factors in [this] case at the appellate 

level.” Appellant’s Br. at 6. We cannot. Anglemeyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 493-94 (Ind. 2007), clarified on 

reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-69 | July 16, 2019 Page 4 of 5

[6] The finding of mitigating circumstances rests within the trial court’s discretion. 

Newsome v. State, 797 N.E.2d 293, 301 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied (2004). 

A “trial court does not abuse its discretion in failing to consider a mitigating 

factor that was not raised at sentencing.” Anglemeyer, 868 N.E.2d at 492.

However, “this general proposition has at least one important exception, 

namely: pleas of guilty.” Anglemeyer, 875 N.E.2d at 220. Because the trial court 

is inherently aware that a guilty plea is a mitigating circumstance, Parton is not 

precluded from raising the issue for the first time on appeal. Id. “We thus 

examine the trial court’s failure to mention this factor under our abuse of 

discretion standard of review.” Id. 

[7] In clarifying how to treat a guilty plea, our supreme court offered this analysis:

We have held that a defendant who pleads guilty deserves some 

mitigating weight be given to the plea in return. But an allegation 

that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating factor 

requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is 

not only supported by the record but also that the mitigating 

evidence is significant. And the significance of a guilty plea as a 

mitigating factor varies from case to case. For example, a guilty 

plea may not be significantly mitigating when it does not 

demonstrate the defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, or 

when the defendant receives a substantial benefit in return for the 

plea.

Id. (emphasis added) (citations and internal quotations omitted).

[8] Anglemeyer is very similar to this case. “[T]he record shows that [Parton’s] plea 

agreement was more likely the result of pragmatism than acceptance of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-69 | July 16, 2019 Page 5 of 5

responsibility and remorse[,]” because the evidence against Parton was

overwhelming. Id. Also like Anglemeyer, Parton attempted at the sentencing 

hearing to “minimize his culpability by relying upon . . . mental impairment, 

and a history of emotional and behavioral problems.” Id. See Tr. Vol 2 at 6

(“Every decision I make is based on drug use and how to get drugs and how to 

get high.”). In sum, Parton has failed to show that his guilty plea was a 

significant mitigating circumstance. Therefore, we affirm.

[9] Affirmed.

Bradford, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.