Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1583 | January 19, 2021 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

Arturo Rodriguez II

Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Theodore E. Rokita

Attorney General of Indiana

Jodi Kathryn Stein

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Bobby L. Peck,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

January 19, 2021

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-1583

Appeal from the Warren Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Hunter Reece, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

86C01-1904-F6-36

Altice, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1583 | January 19, 2021 Page 2 of 8

Case Summary

[1] Following his guilty plea to two counts of Level 6 felony identity deception and

his admission to being a habitual offender, Bobby Peck appeals his aggregate 

four-year executed sentence. He asserts that his sentence is inappropriate in 

light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On April 22, 2019, a trooper with the Indiana State Police stopped a vehicle, 

later determined to be driven by Peck, on U.S. Highway 41 for speeding. The 

trooper approached and, while speaking to Peck, smelled what he recognized to 

be marijuana. At the trooper’s request, Peck and the passenger exited the 

vehicle. During a search of the vehicle, the trooper found five driver’s licenses 

bearing the name of Douglas Grant and two bearing the name of Christopher 

Simmons, with each having a separate license number. Peck’s photo was on 

them all. The trooper also found checks and a prepaid debit card in Grant’s 

name and two checks in Simmons’s name. Additionally, the trooper found 

twenty-eight counterfeit twenty-dollar bills. The trooper ran a computer check 

on the driver’s licenses and learned they were fake. 

[4] On April 29, 2019, the State charged Peck with Level 6 felony identity 

deception, Level 6 felony synthetic identity deception, and two counts of Class 

A misdemeanor false government identification. On April 10, 2020, the State 

filed a notice of enhancement, alleging that Peck was a habitual offender, based 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1583 | January 19, 2021 Page 3 of 8

on three prior convictions: a September 1980 Class B felony rape; a September 

1986 murder; and a November 2017 conviction in Michigan for stealing a 

financial transaction device.

[5] On July 1, 2020, Peck pled guilty to the two Level 6 felony counts of identity 

deception and admitted to being a habitual offender, and the State dismissed 

the remaining charges. The sentencing terms were left open to the trial court’s 

discretion, other than that Peck’s enhancement on the habitual offender was set 

at two years and that the sentences on each of the two felonies would run 

concurrent with each other and concurrent to his sentence on a federal 

counterfeiting case that was pending in the Western District of North Carolina. 

The next day, the court accepted the guilty plea and set the sentencing hearing 

for July 29, 2020. 

[6] At the sentencing hearing, the court acknowledged having received and 

reviewed the presentence investigation report. Peck apologized for his 

wrongdoing and indicated his acceptance of responsibility. In its sentencing 

statement, the court found Peck’s history of criminal or delinquent behavior to 

be an aggravating circumstance, as well as the fact that Peck “recently violated 

conditions of probation, parole, pardon, community corrections, and placement 

or pretrial release[.]” Appellant’s Appendix at 54. The court found as mitigating

that Peck entered a plea of guilty “which shows remorse and accountability” 

and that he did not cause or threaten bodily harm. Id. The court sentenced 

Peck to two years on each of the two Level 6 felonies, to be served 

concurrently, and enhanced his sentence by two years for the habitual offender 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1583 | January 19, 2021 Page 4 of 8

finding, for a total sentence of four years to be served at the Indiana 

Department of Correction (DOC). Peck now appeals.

Discussion & Decision

[7] Peck asserts that the four-year sentence is inappropriate and asks us to revise his 

sentence to a shorter executed term so that he can obtain needed mental health 

treatment that would be available to him on probation. Pursuant to Ind. 

Appellate Rule 7(B), we may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due 

consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find the sentence inappropriate in 

light of the nature of the offenses and the character of the offender. Indiana’s 

flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate sentence 

to the circumstances presented, and deference to the trial court “prevail[s] 

unless 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). 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 burden is on the 

defendant to persuade us his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 

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

[8] As to the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting point the 

Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1583 | January 19, 2021 Page 5 of 8

at 1081. For each of his Level 6 felony convictions, Peck faced between six 

months and two and one-half years, with the advisory sentence being one year. 

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). Here, the trial court imposed two years on each of 

Peck’s two convictions, to be served concurrently, and it entered the agreed 

upon two-year enhancement,1 for an aggregate four-year sentence.

[9] As this court has recognized, “[t]he 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). Peck

argues that there is nothing particularly egregious about the nature of the 

offenses, noting that he was only stopped for speeding and was cooperative 

with the trooper, and that “the record does not show that that there was any 

harm to anyone in these crimes.” Appellant’s Brief at 10. However, Peck was 

found with seven fake licenses, as well as checks and a debit card, that he 

admitted he intended to use. While that did not cause physical harm to Grant 

or Simmons, it certainly could have caused – and may indeed have caused –

significant grief or financial harm to them. Peck has not established that the 

nature of the offenses warrants reduction of the trial court’s sentence. 

[10] “The character of the offender is found in what we learn of the offender’s life 

and conduct.” Croy, 952 N.E.2d at 664. When considering the character of the 

1 But for the plea agreement, the court could have imposed up to an additional six years for Peck’s status as a 

habitual offender. I.C. § 35-50-2-8(i)(2) (stating range is two to six years for person convicted of Level 5 or 

Level 6 felony).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1583 | January 19, 2021 Page 6 of 8

offender, “‘one relevant fact is the defendant’s criminal history,’ and ‘[t]he 

significance of criminal history varies based on the gravity, nature, and number 

of prior offenses in relation to the current offense.’” Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 

839, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Garcia v. State, 47 N.E.3d 1249, 1251 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied), trans. denied. The trial court may consider 

not only the defendant’s adult criminal history but also his juvenile delinquency 

record in determining whether his criminal history is significant. Id. 

[11] Peck began having encounters with the juvenile system when he was eleven or 

twelve years old, facing charges of, among other things, what would be theft, 

fraud, disorderly conduct, auto theft, and robbery if committed as an adult. He 

was committed for a period of time to the Indiana Boys’ School. Thereafter, 

while on supervised probation, he faced charges of, among other things, assault, 

possession of a weapon, truancy, and theft. He was committed to other 

placements and was eventually paroled from the Boys’ School in September 

1979. In January 1980, he was arrested for rape and waived to adult court, 

where he was convicted of Class B felony rape and sentenced to ten years in the 

DOC, which sentence was later modified to six years. He was released from 

parole in January 1986. 

[12] In June 1986, he committed a murder. He pled guilty and was sentenced in 

September 1986 to sixty years in the DOC. He reported in his presentence 

investigation report to spending fourteen years in solitary confinement due to 

disciplinary problems. He was discharged to parole in December 2015 and then

released from parole in December 2016. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1583 | January 19, 2021 Page 7 of 8

[13] A string of deception-type crimes ensued. In November 2017, he pled guilty to 

Class A misdemeanor false government identification, was sentenced to one 

year, with thirty-six days to be executed, and the balance was suspended to 

probation. In July 2017, he pled guilty to a Michigan felony offense for stealing 

a financial transaction device. In June 2018, he pled guilty to Level 6 forgery

that occurred in July 2017. He was sentenced to one and one-half years, served 

thirty days, and the balance was suspended to probation, which he then 

violated. In November 2017, he was convicted of misdemeanor false 

government identification. While on probation, he committed the present 

offenses in April 2019. While out on bond in this case, he committed another 

offense, misdemeanor reckless driving.

[14] Peck acknowledges having a significant criminal history but maintains that “it 

is clear” that he “needs mental health rehabilitation” and that “mere 

incarceration fails to solve [his] mental health issues.” Appellant’s Brief at 11. 

Thus far, Peck’s mental health issues are self-diagnosed, with him reporting that 

he suffers from PTSD due to all the years in prison. He previously reported the 

following observation about himself to a probation officer: “After being locked 

up for 29 years, yes, I am f*cked up, but I do not know to what degree.” 

Appellant’s Appendix at 51. While we hope that Peck ultimately will seek and 

obtain the treatment and support he needs, we cannot agree that the sentence 

imposed by the trial court was inappropriate. Peck’s long and serious criminal 

history and his reported disciplinary issues while incarcerated reflect poorly on 

his character and do not support any sentence revision. We also agree with the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1583 | January 19, 2021 Page 8 of 8

State that, even if we were to give “low significance to [Peck]’s past rape and 

murder convictions, his multiple recent fraud/property convictions are directly 

related to the present convictions and are highly reflective of his poor 

character.” Appellee’s Brief at 10.

[15] Our task on appeal is not to determine whether another sentence might be more 

appropriate; rather, the inquiry is whether the imposed sentence is 

inappropriate. Miller v. State, 105 N.E.3d 194, 196 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018); Barker 

v. State, 994 N.E.2d 306, 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. Peck has failed 

to carry his burden of establishing that his sentence is inappropriate in light of 

the nature of the offenses and his character. 

[16] Judgment affirmed.

Mathias, J. and Weissmann, J., concur.