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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

DONALD E.C. LEICHT GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Kokomo, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

RICHARD C. WEBSTER

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

JEREMIAH KELLEY, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 34A02-1303-CR-281

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE HOWARD CIRCUIT COURT

The Honorable Lynn Murray, Judge

Cause No. 34C01-1204-FB-68

August 13, 2013

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CRONE, Judge
2

Jeremiah Kelley appeals his twenty-year sentence imposed following his guilty plea to 

class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, arguing that it is 

inappropriate. We conclude that Kelley fails to carry his burden to show that his sentence is 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Therefore, we affirm.

On April 9, 2012, in Kokomo, Kelley possessed a firearm and had been convicted of 

class B felony possession of a dangerous device by a prisoner within the last fifteen years. 

On April 12, 2012, the State charged Kelley with class B felony unlawful possession of a 

firearm by a serious violent felon, class C felony unlawful sale of a firearm, and class D 

felony possession of stolen property. Kelley and the State entered into a plea agreement in 

which Kelley pled guilty to class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious 

violent felon, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges, and sentencing was left to 

the trial court’s discretion.

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found that Kelley’s guilty plea was a 

mitigating circumstance but was deserving of little weight because he received a substantial 

benefit from his plea agreement. The trial court found that Kelley’s criminal history was a 

significant aggravating circumstance based on Kelley’s seven felony convictions, two 

misdemeanor convictions, multiple arrests, and numerous probation violations. The trial 

court sentenced Kelley to twenty years, all executed. 

Kelley appeals his sentence arguing that it is inappropriate pursuant to Indiana 

Appellate Rule 7(B), which states, “The 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 
3

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” 

“[W]hen reviewing a sentence, our principal role is to leaven the outliers rather than 

necessarily achieve what is perceived as the correct result.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 

1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). “We do not look to determine if the sentence was appropriate; 

instead we look to make sure the sentence was not inappropriate.” Conley v. State, 972 

N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). Kelley has the burden to show that his sentence is 

inappropriate. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 

N.E.2d 218. 

Turning first to the nature of the offense, we observe that “the advisory sentence is the 

starting point the Legislature selected as appropriate for the crime committed.” Pierce v. 

State, 949 N.E.2d 349, 352 (Ind. 2011). Kelley was convicted of class B felony unlawful 

possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The legislature made this offense a class B 

felony to keep “firearms out of the hands of those persons whose prior conduct indicated a 

heightened proclivity for using firearms to threaten community peace.” Baker v. State, 747 

N.E.2d 633, 638 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). For a class B felony, the advisory sentence is ten

years, and the sentencing range is six to twenty years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5. Kelley 

received the maximum sentence. The factual basis for Kelley’s conviction is that he 

unlawfully possessed a firearm and is a serious violent felon based on his previous conviction 

for class B felony possession of a dangerous device by a prisoner. There is nothing about the 

nature of his crime that supports a sentence above or below the advisory.
4

However, we review a sentence based upon both the nature of the offense and the 

character of the offender. Kelley’s character, as demonstrated by his extensive criminal 

history, is degenerate and depraved. As a juvenile, he was taken into custody four times for 

class B misdemeanor battery. At 16, he was adjudicated of burglary and was placed in the 

Indiana Boys School after violating probation. Also at 16, he was charged with auto theft, 

criminal recklessness, resisting law enforcement, and possession of marijuana and controlled 

substances, and was waived to adult court. Although those charges were dismissed, he was 

convicted in adult court for class D felony sexual battery later that same year. He also has 

convictions for class D felony receiving stolen auto parts, class D felony resisting law 

enforcement, class C felony receiving stolen auto parts, being a habitual offender, failure to 

return to lawful detention, and possessing a dangerous device by a prisoner. He also has two 

misdemeanor convictions. He has been placed on probation five times and violated the terms 

of his suspended sentence five times. He has demonstrated a continuous pattern of criminal 

activity throughout his life. His character alone supports the imposition of a maximum 

sentence. 

Kelley, however, argues that he has schizophrenia, for which he has not been treated 

outside of incarceration, a history of substance abuse, is unemployed, and steals to get money 

for drugs. By his own admission, Kelly has not sought treatment for his alleged mental 

illness. In addition, there is also no indication from the record that he has ever sought help 

for his substance abuse. Given that he repeatedly engages in criminal activity and has not 
5

sought help for his issues, Kelley has failed to persuade us that his twenty-year sentence is 

inappropriate. As such, we affirm his sentence.

Affirmed. 

BARNES, J., and PYLE, J., concur.