Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2992 | October 5, 2020 Page 1 of 8

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

Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Tyler G. Banks

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

James N. Hartmann,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

October 5, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-2992

Appeal from the Vigo Superior 

Court 

The Honorable Sarah K. Mullican, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

84D03-1711-F6-3568

84D03-1508-F4-1968

Rucker, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2992 | October 5, 2020 Page 2 of 8

Statement of the Case

[1] James N. Hartmann pleaded guilty to Burglary. Sentenced to the advisory term 

of six years, Hartmann appeals contending his sentence is inappropriate in light 

of the nature of the offense and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On July 14, 2014, Hartmann was charged with Burglary as a Level 4 felony. 1 

After his arrest, a bond was set, and Hartmann was taken into custody by the 

Vigo County Sheriff. A few months later the trial court released Hartmann on 

his own recognizance but required him to obtain mental health treatment at a 

residential treatment facility and to reside there pending further order of the 

court. Thereafter, Hartmann and the State entered into a mental health deferral 

agreement under which Hartmann would plead guilty to Burglary as charged 

and enter a treatment program administered by the Vigo County Mental Health 

Court. The trial court would withhold judgment on the guilty plea pending the 

outcome of the treatment program. Provided Hartmann satisfactorily 

completed the program, the plea would be set aside, and the State would 

dismiss the charge. In August 2015 the trial court accepted the parties’ 

agreement. Hartmann pleaded guilty pursuant to its terms and entered the 

program. 

1

Ind. Code §35-43-2-1(1) (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2992 | October 5, 2020 Page 3 of 8

[3] One of the terms of the agreement was that Hartmann would not commit a new 

criminal offense. Hartmann was participating in the treatment program on 

October 20, 2017 when, unprovoked, he pointed a BB gun at two of his 

neighbors threatening to shoot them and chased after the neighbors while 

waiving a sword. As a result, Hartmann was charged with Count I Criminal 

Recklessness as a Level 6 felony2and Count 2 Intimidation as a Level 6 felony.3

In consequence, the State filed a motion to terminate the mental health deferral 

agreement which the trial court granted. After scheduling the case for trial, but 

following a defense motion for a competency evaluation, on September 3, 2018 

the trial court found Hartmann incompetent to stand trial and remanded him to 

the custody of the Logansport State Hospital. Although the record is not 

altogether clear, apparently Hartmann was restored to competency on or 

around February 22, 2019 at which time the Sheriff was ordered to transport 

Hartmann “from Logansport State Hospital to the Vigo County jail.” 

Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 15. 

[4] Thereafter, Hartmann entered an agreement with the State which provided that 

he would plead guilty but mentally ill to both Criminal Recklessness and 

Intimidation as Level 6 felonies. Hartmann agreed to a sentence of two and a 

half years for each offense to run concurrently. With regard to the Level 4 

2

Ind. Code §35-42-2-2(b)(1)(A) (2014).

3

Ind. Code §35-45-2-1(b)(1)(A) (2017).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2992 | October 5, 2020 Page 4 of 8

felony Burglary for which Hartmann had previously pleaded guilty, sentencing 

was left to the discretion of the trial court. The trial court accepted the parties’ 

agreement and Hartmann pleaded guilty accordingly. 

[5] At the November 25, 2019 sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed the 

agreed-upon concurrent sentences of two and a half years for the two Level 6 

felonies. Citing Hartmann’s criminal history as an aggravating factor and 

Hartmann’s mental health problems as a mitigating factor, the court sentenced 

Hartmann to a term of six years for the Level 4 felony Burglary to be served 

consecutively to the sentences imposed for the two Level 6 felonies for a total 

executed term of eight and a half years. This appeal followed. Additional facts 

are set forth below. 

Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review

[6] Hartmann seeks to reduce his sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) 

which provides that this Court “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.” We independently examine the nature of Hartmann’s offense 

and his character under Rule 7(B) with substantial deference to the trial court’s 

sentence. See Satterfield v. State, 33 N.E.3d 344, 355 (Ind. 2015). “In conducting 

our review, we do not look to see whether the defendant’s sentence is 

appropriate or if another sentence might be more appropriate; rather, the test is 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2992 | October 5, 2020 Page 5 of 8

whether the sentence is ‘inappropriate.’” Barker v. State, 994 N.E.2d 306, 315 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. The principal role of appellate review should 

be to attempt to leaven the outliers, “not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result 

in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). The 

defendant bears the burden of persuading this Court that his or her sentence is 

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

II. Appropriateness of Sentence

[7] Concerning the nature of the offense “the advisory sentence is the starting point 

the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime 

committed.” Kunberger v. State, 46 N.E.2d 966, 973 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). A 

reviewing court is thus “unlikely to consider an advisory sentence 

inappropriate.” Shelby v. State, 986 N.E.2d 345, 371 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans 

denied. Rather, the defendant “bears a particularly heavy burden in persuading 

us that his sentence is inappropriate when the trial court imposes the advisory 

sentence.” Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App, 2011), trans. 

denied. Here, the advisory sentence for Hartmann’s Level 4 felony Burglary 

conviction is six years with a range of between two years and twelve years. See

Ind. Code §35-50-2-5.5. Hartmann received a sentence of six years – the 

advisory term. 

[8] Generally, the nature of the offense is found in the details and circumstances of 

the commission of the offense and the defendant’s participation. Croy v. State,

953 N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). However, in this case there are few 

details in the record related to the nature of the offense. Hartmann 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2992 | October 5, 2020 Page 6 of 8

acknowledges as much noting “[t]he record is devoid of any particular facts 

regarding the nature of this offense.” Appellant’s Br. p. 5. The shallow record 

on this point is likely a byproduct of the sentence being imposed after a guilty 

plea rather than after a trial. 

[9] In any case one bit of evidence we do have before us bearing on the nature of 

the offense is the charging information which declares in pertinent part “on or 

about July 14, 2014 in Vigo County, State of Indiana, James N. Hartmann did 

break and enter the dwelling of [another person], with the intent to commit 

theft therein . . . .” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 44. Absent any evidence 

suggesting otherwise, it appears that Hartmann’s offense is nothing other than 

“the ‘typical’ offense accounted for by the legislature when it set the advisory 

sentence.” See Holloway v. State, 950 N.E.2d 803, 807 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). In 

essence there is nothing unusual about the nature of Hartmann’s offense that 

justifies revision of his sentence. We conclude Hartmann has not carried his 

heavy burden of demonstrating the nature of the offense renders his advisory 

sentence inappropriate. See Bonilla v. State, 907 N.E.2d 586, 590 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2009), trans. denied. (holding the advisory sentence was not inappropriate based 

in part on the fact that “nothing stands out about the nature of this offense”). 

[10] The “character of the offender” standard in Appellate Rule 7(B) refers to the 

general sentencing considerations and the relevant aggravating and mitigating 

circumstances. Williams v. State, 782 N.E.2d 1039, 1051 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2003). “A defendant’s life and conduct are illustrative of his or her 

character.” Morris v. State, 114 N.E.3d 531, 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). When 

considering the character of the offender one relevant consideration 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 . . . varies based on the 

gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2992 | October 5, 2020 Page 7 of 8

offense.” Id. And we have held that “[e]ven a minor criminal record reflects 

poorly on a defendant’s character.” Reis v. State, 88 N.E.3d 1099, 1105 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2017).

[11] Although Hartmann has no prior felony convictions, the record shows a 

number of misdemeanor charges and convictions dating over a ten-year period. 

They include the following: Reckless Driving; Operating While Intoxicated;

Operating While Intoxicated endangering a person; Invasion of Privacy; 

Resisting Law Enforcement, Public Intoxication, Disorderly Conduct; and 

Criminal Trespass. See Tr. Vol 2, pp. 43-44; Supp. App. Vol. 2 Conf., pp. 39-

40. At the sentencing hearing the trial court recounted this history and also 

noted Hartmann had recently violated the terms and conditions of his pre-trial 

release. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 45. The trial court acknowledged Hartmann’s “serious 

mental health issue,” which included diagnoses of depression and paranoid 

schizophrenia. However, the trial court also observed that over the years 

Hartmann had the opportunity to be placed in mental health treatment 

programs on four separate occasions and failed to complete the program on 

three occasions. Imposing the advisory sentence, the trial concluded, “[i]t 

seems to me that the best place [that] can provide the best treatment for you Mr. 

[ ] Hartmann is [ ] the Department of Corrections [sic].” Id.

[12] Continuing to commit crimes after frequent contacts with the judicial system is 

a poor reflection on one’s character. Rutherford, 866 N.E.2d at 874; see also 

Conner v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (continued crimes 

indicate a failure to take full responsibility for one’s actions). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2992 | October 5, 2020 Page 8 of 8

[13] Here, Hartmann’s criminal record, probationary status, and inability to avail 

himself of community-based mental health treatment programs, factors that 

negatively reflect on Hartmann’s character, establish that the advisory sentence 

is not inappropriate in this case. We find no reason in light of the character of 

the offender to revise Hartmann’s sentence. 

Conclusion

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

Kirsch, J., and Crone, J., concur.