Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 35A05-1709-CR-2207 | April 12, 2018 Page 1 of 11

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

Emilee L. Stotts

Marion, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Angela N. Sanchez

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Shawn M. Burnworth,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 12, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

35A05-1709-CR-2207

Appeal from the Huntington 

Superior Court

The Honorable Jennifer E. 

Newton, Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

35D01-1612-F5-259

35D01-0906-FA-122

Mathias, Judge.

[1] In 2009, Shawn M. Burnworth (“Burnworth”) pleaded guilty in Huntington 

Superior Court to Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine. The court 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 35A05-1709-CR-2207 | April 12, 2018 Page 2 of 11

sentenced Burnworth to twenty years, with fourteen years executed and six 

years suspended to probation. Burnworth was released from prison in 2014 and 

began his probation. In 2016, while still on probation for the first conviction, 

Burnworth pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony dealing in methamphetamine and 

admitted to being an habitual offender and to violating the terms of his 

probation. After this second plea, the trial court sentenced Burnworth to an 

aggregate of twelve years of incarceration. The court also revoked Burnworth’s 

probation and ordered him to serve the six-year balance of his previously 

suspended sentence. Burnworth appeals and presents three issues, which we 

restate as: 

I. Whether the trial court erred by imposing a separate, consecutive sentence

on Burnworth’s habitual offender adjudication; 

II. Whether Burnworth’s twelve-year sentence is inappropriate; and 

III. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Burnworth to 

serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence. 

The State concedes, and we agree, that the trial court erred by imposing the 

habitual offender enhancement as a separate consecutive sentence instead of 

attaching it to Burnworth’s underlying conviction. However, we reject 

Burnworth’s other arguments. We therefore affirm Burnworth’s sentences but 

remand with instructions that the trial court attach the habitual offender 

enhancement to the sentence imposed on the Level 5 felony conviction.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 8, 2009, Burnworth drove his car in Huntington, Indiana while he 

manufactured methamphetamine in the car. At some point, the portable 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 35A05-1709-CR-2207 | April 12, 2018 Page 3 of 11

methamphetamine lab he was using to manufacture the drug exploded, and the 

car burst into flames. Burnworth jumped from the still-moving car, which hit a 

telephone pole. 

[3] As a result of this incident, the State charged Burnworth on June 10, 2009, with 

Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class A misdemeanor 

purchasing three or more grams of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine within seven 

days. On August 4, 2009, Burnworth entered into a plea agreement with the 

State, pursuant to which he agreed to plead guilty to Class B felony dealing in 

methamphetamine and receive a twenty-year sentence. The agreement gave the 

trial court discretion to suspend a portion of the sentence. The trial court 

accepted the plea and sentenced Burnworth to fourteen years executed and six 

years suspended to probation. Burnworth was released from prison on 

December 17, 2014, and began his probation.

[4] In the fall of 2016, the State filed a petition to revoke Burnworth’s probation

alleging that he had failed to report to scheduled appointments with his 

probation officer, failed to report to scheduled drug tests, and failed to provide 

his address to his probation office. At the hearing held on this petition, 

Burnworth admitted to violating the terms of his probation. He also tested 

positive for marijuana use. The trial court declined to revoke Burnworth’s 

probation and decided instead to continue probation with modified conditions, 

which included participation in an intensive outpatient treatment program. 

Burnworth quickly squandered this second chance. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 35A05-1709-CR-2207 | April 12, 2018 Page 4 of 11

[5] On September 14, 2016, Burnworth rode in a car in Huntington County with 

several friends as he manufactured methamphetamine inside a twenty-ounce 

bottle. As the car drove past a local high school, Burnworth noticed that a 

police patrol car was driving behind them. Burnworth made the questionable 

decision to throw the bottle out of the car in view of the police officer, who 

immediately pulled the vehicle over. Inside the car, the police found other items 

used in the manufacture and use of methamphetamine, including one empty 

and one unopened box of pseudoephedrine pills, tools, scales, and hypodermic 

needles. Burnworth admitted that he intended to sell the methamphetamine to 

raise money so that he could leave town and had already made plans to sell the 

methamphetamine. 

[6] As a result of this incident, the State charged Burnworth on December 21, 2016, 

with Level 5 felony dealing in methamphetamine. The State subsequently 

added an allegation that Burnworth was an habitual offender. On August 15, 

2017, Burnworth entered into an “open” plea agreement and pleaded guilty 

without any limitations or agreement as to his sentence. At the September 12, 

2018 sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a six-year sentence on the 

Level 5 felony conviction and a consecutive six-year sentence on the habitual 

offender adjudication. The trial court also revoked Burnworth’s probation and 

ordered him to serve the six-year balance of his previously suspended sentence.

Burnworth now appeals. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 35A05-1709-CR-2207 | April 12, 2018 Page 5 of 11

I. Habitual Offender Enhancement

[7] Burnworth first claims that the trial court erred by entering the sentence 

enhancement for his habitual offender adjudication as a separate, consecutive 

sentence. The State concedes the error, and we agree. An habitual offender 

adjudication does not constitute a separate crime, nor does it result in a separate 

sentence. Rose v. State, 36 N.E.3d 1055, 1064–65 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citing 

Harris v. State, 964 N.E.2d 920, 927 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied). Instead, 

an habitual offender adjudication results in a sentence enhancement imposed 

upon the conviction of a subsequent felony. Id. at 1065. Accordingly, we 

remand with instructions that the trial court vacate the separate sentence on the 

habitual offender enhancement and attach the six-year enhancement to 

Burnworth’s conviction for Level 5 dealing in methamphetamine. See id. 

II. Appropriateness of Sentence

[8] Burnworth next argues that the twelve-year sentence imposed by the trial court 

is inappropriate. Even if a trial court acted within its statutory discretion in 

imposing a sentence, Sections 4 and 6 of Article 7 of the Indiana Constitution 

authorize independent appellate review and revision of a sentence imposed by 

the trial court. Rose, 36 N.E.3d at 1063. This constitutional authority is 

implemented through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that 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.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 35A05-1709-CR-2207 | April 12, 2018 Page 6 of 11

[9] Still, we must exercise deference to a trial court’s sentencing decision, because 

Rule 7(B) requires us to give “due consideration” to that decision and because 

we understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its 

sentencing decisions. Id. Although we have the power to review and revise 

sentences, the 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 what 

we perceive to be a “correct” result in each case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 

1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). 

[10] Our review under Appellate Rule 7(B) should focus on “the forest—the 

aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number 

of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Id. The 

appropriate question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; 

rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. Rose, 36 

N.E.3d at 1063. It is the defendant’s burden on appeal to persuade us that the 

sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 

N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)). 

[11] Here, Burnworth was convicted of a Level 5 felony and found to be an habitual 

offender. The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one to six years. Ind. 

Code § 35-50-2-6(b). And the trial court had the discretion to impose an 

habitual offender enhancement of two to six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(i)(2). 

Thus, the trial court imposed the maximum sentence of twelve years.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 35A05-1709-CR-2207 | April 12, 2018 Page 7 of 11

[12] “Although the maximum possible sentences are generally most appropriate for 

the worst offenders, this rule is not an invitation to determine whether a worse 

offender could be imagined, as it is always possible to identify or hypothesize a 

significantly more despicable scenario, regardless of the nature of any particular 

offense and offender.” Kovats v. State, 982 N.E.2d 409, 416 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). 

By stating that maximum sentences are ordinarily appropriate for the “worst 

offenders,” we refer generally to the class of offenses and offenders that warrant 

the maximum punishment, which encompasses a considerable variety of 

offenses and offenders. Id. Accordingly, “[w]e concentrate less on comparing 

the facts of this case to others, whether real or hypothetical, and more on 

focusing on the nature, extent, and depravity of the offense for which the 

defendant is being sentenced, and what it reveals about the defendant’s 

character.” Wells v. State, 904 N.E.2d 265, 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied

(citing Brown v. State, 760 N.E.2d 243, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied). 

[13] In the present case, the nature of Burnworth’s offense does little to persuade us 

that his sentence is inappropriate. For at least the second time, Burnworth was

operating a mobile methamphetamine lab in a car. Burnworth knew well that 

doing so was dangerous, as his previous effort to do so resulted in his car 

catching fire. And this time, there were others in the car with him. Moreover, 

Burnworth threw the bottle in which he was making methamphetamine out of 

the car window, near a high school football field, thereby exposing even more 

people to the dangerous chemicals used in the making of methamphetamine. 

Burnworth further admitted that he already had buyers for the illicit drugs he 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 35A05-1709-CR-2207 | April 12, 2018 Page 8 of 11

was making and that he planned to sell the methamphetamine to raise funds to 

leave town, despite the fact that he was on probation. 

[14] Burnworth’s character further supports the trial court’s sentencing decision. 

Although Burnworth notes that he cooperated with the police and pleaded 

guilty, this only marginally improves our view of his character. As a juvenile,

Burnworth was found to be delinquent for burglary and illegal possession of 

alcohol, in addition to status offenses such as truancy and running away from 

home. As an adult, Burnworth was twice convicted of Class D felony theft. 

And, as noted above, he was also convicted for Class B felony dealing in 

methamphetamine and was still on probation for this offense when he 

committed the instant offense. He has also accumulated convictions for twelve 

misdemeanors, including possession of marijuana, intimidation, battery, 

criminal mischief, public intoxication, operating while intoxicated, failure to 

stop at the scene of an accident, conversion, check deception, illegal possession 

of alcohol, and the purchase of more than three grams of ephedrine or 

pseudoephedrine. 

[15] In addition, not only was Burnworth on probation at the time he committed the 

instant offense, he was on probation for committing the exact same act—

manufacturing methamphetamine while in an automobile. And when 

Burnworth first violated the terms of his probation, the trial court chose not to 

revoke his probation and instead gave him a second chance on probation. 

Burnworth then committed the same crime for which he was on probation, i.e., 

manufacturing methamphetamine.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 35A05-1709-CR-2207 | April 12, 2018 Page 9 of 11

[16] Despite Burnworth’s argument that his criminal behavior was motivated by his 

substance abuse problem—which we do not doubt—he squandered the 

opportunity for treatment that was offered to him while on probation. 

Specifically, when the trial court chose to continue Burnworth’s probation and 

ordered him to participate in intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment, 

Burnworth chose not to participate in treatment. Instead, he fled the State. 

[17] All of these facts and circumstances lead us to the conclusion that the twelveyear sentence imposed by the trial court is not inappropriate.1

III. Probation Sentence

[18] Lastly, Burnworth argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it 

ordered him to serve the six-year balance of his previously suspended sentence. 

Burnworth does not deny that he violated the terms of his probation; to the

contrary, he admitted to having done so. He claims only that, after he was 

charged with the instant offense, he found gainful employment in North Dakota 

and stopped using illicit drugs and that the trial court should therefore have not 

ordered him to serve the entire balance of his previously suspended sentence. 

 

1

 We find Burnworth’s citation to Parks v. State, 22 N.E.3d 552 (Ind. 2014), unavailing. In that case, the 

defendant was convicted of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine and was sentenced under the prior 

sentencing scheme to forty years of incarceration. On appeal, our supreme court revised his sentence to thirty 

years, with twenty years executed at the Department of Correction, two years executed on Community 

Corrections, and eight years suspended to probation. Id. at 556. Thus, even the revised sentence in Parks was 

considerably greater than Burnworth’s sentence. Although this is due in part to the 2015 revision of the 

criminal code, the fact remains that Parks’s sentence was much greater than Burnworth’s. Moreover, 

Burnworth, unlike the defendant in Parks, was on probation for the exact same behavior when he committed 

the instant offense. We therefore do not find Parks to be controlling. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 35A05-1709-CR-2207 | April 12, 2018 Page 10 of 11

[19] Upon a finding of a probation violation, a trial court may impose one or more 

of the following sanctions:

(1) Continue the person on probation, with or without modifying 

or enlarging the conditions.

(2) Extend the person’s probationary period for not more than 

one (1) year beyond the original probationary period.

(3) Order execution of all or part of the sentence that was 

suspended at the time of initial sentencing.

Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h).

[20] A defendant is not entitled to serve a sentence in a probation program; rather, 

such placement is a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not 

a right. Abernathy v. State, 852 N.E.2d 1016, 1020 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). We 

review the trial court’s sentencing decisions on probation violations for an 

abuse of discretion. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). An abuse 

of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of 

the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. The trial court should be given

considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed following the revocation of 

probation. Id. Consequently, so long as proper procedures have been followed, 

the trial court may order execution of a suspended sentence after revoking 

probation. Goonen v. State, 705 N.E.2d 209, 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999); see also

I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h). 

[21] Here, Burnworth had previously violated the terms of his probation. The trial 

court could have revoked his probation and ordered him to serve the balance of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 35A05-1709-CR-2207 | April 12, 2018 Page 11 of 11

his previously suspended sentence at that time. Instead, the trial court gave 

Burnworth a second chance and extended his probation with the additional 

condition of outpatient substance abuse treatment. Instead of taking advantage 

of this opportunity, Burnworth failed to undergo treatment and committed the 

very same act that resulted in him being placed on probation in the first place—

making methamphetamine. And after his arrest for this second incident, 

Burnworth fled the state. The trial court was therefore well within its discretion 

to order Burnworth to serve the six-year balance of his previously suspended 

sentence. 

Conclusion

[22] Burnworth’s aggregate twelve-year sentence is not inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Nor did the trial court 

abuse its discretion in ordering Burnworth to serve the six-year balance of his 

previously suspended sentence. The trial court did, however, err by entering the 

habitual offender enhancement as a separate, consecutive sentenced instead of 

attaching it to the six-year sentence imposed on the Level 5 felony conviction. 

We therefore affirm Burnworth’s sentences and remand with instructions that 

the trial court attach the habitual offender enhancement to the sentence 

imposed on the Level 5 felony conviction.

[23] Affirmed and remanded. 

Najam, J., and Barnes, J. concur.