Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-89 | April 19, 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

Brian A. Karle

Ball Eggleston, PC

Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Matthew B. Mackenzie

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Bryan Lee Jordan,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 19, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-89

Appeal from the Tippecanoe 

Superior Court

The Honorable Steven P. Meyer, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

79D02-1703-F5-34

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-89 | April 19, 2018 Page 2 of 4

Statement of the Case

[1] Bryan Lee Jordan appeals his sentence following his convictions for possession 

of methamphetamine, as a Level 6 felony, and possession of a narcotic drug, as 

a Level 6 felony. Jordan presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether 

his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his 

character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On July 14, 2016, a Lafayette Police Department officer conducted a traffic stop 

after he saw Jordan, whose driver’s license was then suspended, driving a car. 

When the officer smelled marijuana coming from Jordan’s car, two officers 

searched the car and found methamphetamine, a pill containing hydrocodone,

marijuana, and a handgun. The State charged Jordan with possession of 

methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony; possession of a narcotic drug, as a 

Level 5 felony; two counts of carrying a handgun without a license, one as a 

Level 5 felony and one as a Class A misdemeanor; and two other 

misdemeanors.

[3] On August 18, 2017, Jordan pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine, 

as a Level 6 felony, and possession of a narcotic, as a Level 6 felony. In 

exchange for that guilty plea, the State dismissed the remaining charges. The 

trial court entered judgment of conviction accordingly and sentenced Jordan to 

concurrent sentences of two years in the Department of Correction. This 

appeal ensued.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-89 | April 19, 2018 Page 3 of 4

Discussion and Decision

[4] Jordan contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offenses and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “[t]he 

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.” The 

Indiana Supreme Court has recently explained that: 

The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to 

leaven the outliers . . . but not achieve a perceived “correct” 

result in each case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 

2008). Defendant has the burden to persuade us that the 

sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Anglemyer v. 

State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind.), as amended (July 10, 2007), 

decision clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).

Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original). 

[5] Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate 

sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court’s judgment “should 

receive considerable deference.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. Whether we 

regard a sentence as inappropriate 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.” Id. at 1224. 

The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather 

whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 

268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] unless 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-89 | April 19, 2018 Page 4 of 4

overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the 

offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the 

defendant’s character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples 

of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). 

[6] Jordan maintains that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offenses. In particular, he asserts that the offenses “are not more egregious than 

the ‘typical’ offense.” Appellant’s Br. at 8. Be that as it may, we consider both 

the nature of the offenses and Jordan’s character in our review, see Williams v. 

State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), and Jordan’s bad character

persuades us that his sentence is not inappropriate. 

[7] At the time of the sentencing hearing, Jordan’s criminal history included

convictions for six felonies and twenty misdemeanors, and he was serving a 

twenty-six-year sentence, which included a habitual offender enhancement, for 

other convictions. Jordan has been found to have violated the terms of his 

probation five times, and he was out on bond for another offense at the time of 

the instant offenses. Further, Jordan admits to a history of substance abuse, 

which he has been unable to overcome despite court-ordered participation in 

multiple substance abuse programs. We cannot say that Jordan’s sentence is 

inappropriate in light of his character.

[8] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Altice, J., concur.