Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-880 | October 26, 2018 Page 1 of 7

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

Donald E.C. Leicht

Kokomo, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Caroline G. Templeton

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana 

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Richard Ford,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

October 26, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-880

Appeal from the Howard Superior 

Court

The Honorable William C. 

Menges, Jr., Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

34D01-1705-F6-555

Mathias, Judge.

[1] Richard Ford (“Ford”) appeals his sentence of thirty months in the Department 

of Correction (“DOC”) from the Howard Superior Court. He presents one issue 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-880 | October 26, 2018 Page 2 of 7

for review, which we restate as whether the sentence is inappropriate given the 

nature of the offense and the character of the offender.

[2] We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On May 2, 2017, an officer with the Kokomo Police Department conducted a 

traffic stop of Ford. During this traffic stop, the officer determined that one of 

the passengers who was in Ford’s vehicle had active warrants. During this 

passenger’s transportation to the Howard County Jail, she admitted that she 

frequently purchased heroin from Ford at his home. The Kokomo Police

Department also had an earlier tip that multiple people were entering Ford’s 

house and leaving only a few minutes later. Based on this information, police 

were able to obtain a search warrant for Ford’s home that they executed the 

next day. 

[4] During the execution of the warrant, police discovered three syringes, clear 

plastic bags, straws with an off-white powdery substance, a burnt spoon, digital 

scales, Suboxone, and five yellow capsules in Ford’s bedroom. Officers also 

found a safe containing marijuana and a clear plastic bag with a white powder 

Ford identified as “chemy.” Appellant’s App. p. 21. Ford admitted the safe and 

its contents belonged to him. Two pill bottles with a variety of pills and capsules 

were found in a backpack that Ford also identified as his.

[5] The State charged Ford with unlawful possession of a syringe, a Level 6 felony, 

maintaining a common nuisance, a Level 6 felony, possession of a synthetic 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-880 | October 26, 2018 Page 3 of 7

drug or look-a-like substance, a class A misdemeanor, possession of marijuana, 

a class B misdemeanor, and possession of paraphernalia, a class C 

misdemeanor. On March 12, 2018, Ford pleaded guilty to maintaining a 

common nuisance, possession of a synthetic drug or look-a-like substance, and 

possession of marijuana.

[6] The trial court sentenced Ford to an aggregate sentence of thirty months 

executed in the DOC. He challenges this sentence as inappropriate in light of 

the nature of the offense and character of the offender. 

Discussion and Decision

[7] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that the court on appeal “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.” 

[8] Still, we must and should 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. Trainor v. State, 950 N.E.2d 352,

355 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d 858, 866 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2007)), trans. denied. 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 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-880 | October 26, 2018 Page 4 of 7

we perceive to be a “correct” result in each case. Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 

1080, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 

1225 (Ind. 2008)), trans. denied. 

[9] The appropriate question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; 

rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. Fonner v. 

State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Whether a sentence is 

appropriate “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.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224. When considering the 

character of the offender, an individual’s criminal history is relevant to the trial 

court’s determination. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2007). Even a minor criminal record reflects poorly on the character of a 

defendant. Reis v. State, 88 N.E.3d 1099, 1105 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). 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). 

[10] Ford faced a sentence of between six months and thirty months, with an 

advisory sentence of one year, in the DOC for the Level 6 felony of maintaining 

a common nuisance. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). He also faced a term of not more 

than one year for possession of a synthetic drug or look-a-like substance as a 

class A misdemeanor, and a term of not more than 180 days for possession of 

marijuana, a class B misdemeanor. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2 & 3. Therefore, his 

total term of consecutive imprisonment for the charges in the instant matter 

could not exceed four years. Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(d)(1). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-880 | October 26, 2018 Page 5 of 7

[11] The nature of the crimes supports the appropriateness of the sentence. Ford was 

acting as a middleman in drug transactions to support his heroin habit. Police 

were alerted to the possibility that Ford was selling drugs after a concerned 

father reported that Ford had gotten his daughter addicted to synthetic 

marijuana and a report from a neighbor who had noticed high traffic in and out 

of his home. 

[12] Ford’s poor character does not convince us that his sentence is inappropriate. 

Ford’s criminal history is extensive. His history contains juvenile adjudications, 

seventeen misdemeanor convictions, and eight felony convictions. Prior to the 

instant matter, he had been placed on community supervision nineteen times. 

The State had filed seven violations of community supervision, which resulted 

in his probation being revoked three times. Additionally, he has fathered eight 

children for whom he does not regularly pay support. He admitted at 

sentencing that he is a drug addict and lived a criminal lifestyle for 

approximately twenty-seven years. However, the record contains no evidence 

that he has previously sought treatment for his addiction or otherwise made any 

attempt to remedy his criminal lifestyle. His numerous probation violations 

demonstrate prior lenient treatment was unsuccessful in reformation.

[13] Based on the nature of the crimes and the character of the offender, we are

unable to conclude that Ford’s sentence is inappropriate.

[14] Ford also requests that we change the location of his sentence to be served at a 

residential treatment facility with his prison time suspended. The location 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-880 | October 26, 2018 Page 6 of 7

where a sentence is to be served is an appropriate focus for application of a 

reviewing court’s review and revise authority. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 267 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Biddinger v. State, 868 N.E.2d 407, 414 (Ind. 2007)). 

As the question under Appellate Rule 7(B) analysis is “not whether another 

sentence is more appropriate” but rather “whether the sentence imposed is 

inappropriate,” it is “quite difficult” for a defendant to prevail on a claim that 

his placement is inappropriate. Id. at 267–68. “As a practical matter, trial courts 

know the feasibility of alternative placements in particular counties or 

communities.” Id. at 268. A defendant challenging the placement of a sentence 

must convince us that the given placement is itself inappropriate. Id.

[15] At the sentencing hearing, Ford requested placement in a community setting, or

in the alternative, to be placed in the Therapeutic Community Program at the 

DOC. The trial court considered Ford’s request and sentenced him to the DOC

with a recommendation that he be placed in a clinically appropriate substance 

abuse treatment program. The trial court also stated that it would consider a 

sentence modification upon successful completion of a clinically appropriate 

substance abuse treatment program at the DOC. It is disingenuous for Ford to 

make a request for a placement, even in the alternative, have it granted by the 

trial court, and then argue on appeal that the location for the sentence is 

inappropriate. We cannot conclude that the location of the sentence in the 

instant matter is inappropriate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-880 | October 26, 2018 Page 7 of 7

Conclusion

[16] For all of these reasons, we conclude that Ford’s thirty-month sentence is not 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the 

offender. 

[17] Affirm.

Bailey, J., and Bradford, J., concur.