Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1611-CR-2838 | March 30, 2017 Page 1 of 5

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

Caryn N. Szyper

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Robert D. Rivard,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

March 30, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

84A04-1611-CR-2838

Appeal from the Vigo Superior 

Court

The Honorable David R. Bolk, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

84D03-1603-F2-812

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1611-CR-2838 | March 30, 2017 Page 2 of 5

Statement of the Case

[1] Robert D. Rivard appeals his sentence after he pleaded guilty to dealing in 

methamphetamine, as a Level 2 felony. Rivard raises a single issue for our 

review, namely, whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of 

the offense and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On March 17, 2016, the Indiana State Police obtained a search warrant for 

Rivard’s residence after having conducted two controlled drug buys there. 

While executing that warrant, Rivard informed the searching officers that there 

was methamphetamine in the middle drawer of his bedroom dresser. There, 

officers found and seized 37.5 grams of methamphetamine. Officers also found 

and seized a black digital scale with white residue on it, a glass smoking device, 

and more than $5,000 in cash.

[3] The State charged Rivard with several offenses. On September 16, Rivard 

pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to dealing in 

methamphetamine, as a Level 2 felony. In exchange, the State agreed to 

dismiss four other charges and an habitual offender allegation. The parties 

further agreed that Rivard would not be sentenced to more than twenty-five 

years executed.

[4] The trial court accepted Rivard’s plea agreement and held a sentencing hearing. 

At the conclusion of that hearing, the court stated as follows:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1611-CR-2838 | March 30, 2017 Page 3 of 5

[T]he aggravating factor here is . . . Mr. Rivard’s criminal 

history. [H]e has nine prior felony convictions . . . many of them 

are alcohol and drug related . . . . I find no other statutory 

aggravating . . . factors. . . . [W]ith respect to . . . the mitigating 

factors . . . I’m not go[ing] to give much weight to the fact that he 

ple[aded] guilty because the habitual was dismissed as part of this 

proceeding . . . [,] but he did plead guilty, has taken responsibility 

and ple[aded], and has pl[eaded] to a significant 

and . . . serious . . . offense . . . . [B]ut he received a significant 

benefit because had he been convicted of a Level Two . . . it’s a 

mandatory minimum non-suspendible . . . on . . . the habitual 

portion. . . . Mr. Rivard clearly has some health and medical 

issues that are more significant than . . . the Court usually sees. 

He’s had a stroke, he’s had . . . difficulty reading and writing, has 

difficulty using the right side of his body. . . . He was cooperative 

[during the execution of the search warrant]. . . . Mr. Rivard is 

not addicted to methamphetamine. . . . He’s impoverished. 

He’d make [sic] an economic business decision . . . to sell 

methamphetamine. . . . [H]e’s apologized for it, but it’s clear that 

this is not a person who’s using a little bit, selling a little bit. 

There was a significant amount of methamphetamine 

here . . . and Mr. Rivard . . . wasn’t using. He has substance 

abuse issues . . . I mean, alcohol addiction probably, marijuana 

addiction admittedly . . . . [I]n light of Mr. Rivard’s criminal 

history . . . this requires a slightly aggravated sentence over and 

above the advisory, so I’m go[ing] to impose a sentence of 

nineteen years. I’m going to order that six be executed at the 

Indiana Department of Correction[.] I’m go[ing to] order that 

Mr. Rivard be placed in a Therapeutic Community; specifically

the Court’s recommending G.R.I.P. or P.L.U.S. That upon 

successful completion of G.R.I.P. or P.L.U.S. . . . the Court will 

immediately suspend the balance of the six years and place him 

on formal probation . . . . With respect to the fourteen years 

suspended, I’m going to order that . . . [six and one-half years] be 

formal [probation], [six and one-half years] informal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1611-CR-2838 | March 30, 2017 Page 4 of 5

Tr. Vol. IV at 21-24. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Rivard contends that his sentence is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) 

permits an Indiana appellate court to “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 assess the trial court’s recognition or nonrecognition of 

aggravators and mitigators as an initial guide to determining whether the 

sentence imposed was inappropriate. Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2006). The principal role of appellate review is to “leaven the 

outliers.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). A defendant 

must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met the 

inappropriateness standard of review. Roush v. State, 875 N.E.2d 801, 812 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2007).

[6] According to Rivard, his nineteen-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offense because, while he was in possession of a large amount of 

methamphetamine and cash, he was cooperative with police during the 

execution of the warrant, he was not in possession of firearms or other 

weapons, and he did not act “in a violent or aggressive manner at any time.” 

Appellant’s Br. at 7. And, with respect to his character, Rivard contends that 

his sentence is inappropriate because, while he has a lengthy criminal history, 

he suffers from several health problems, he is impoverished, he cooperated with 

police, and he pleaded guilty.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1611-CR-2838 | March 30, 2017 Page 5 of 5

[7] We cannot agree with Rivard that his sentence is inappropriate. The trial court, 

having already considered all the factors raised on appeal, balanced them and 

imposed a nuanced sentence. In particular, the court ordered Rivard to serve

nineteen years total, which is one and one-half years above the advisory term 

for a Level 2 felony. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5 (2016). But the court ordered 

only six of those nineteen years to be executed—well below the twenty-five 

years the court could have imposed under the plea agreement—and of those six 

years the court instructed Rivard that it would immediately suspend any 

portion of that time that remained once Rivard successfully completed a 

therapeutic community program. Of the other thirteen years, the court ordered 

that they be evenly split between formal and informal probation.

[8] Considering the amount of methamphetamine discovered in Rivard’s residence, 

which was nearly quadruple the amount needed to convict him of the Level 2 

felony offense, and his extensive criminal history, we cannot say that Rivard’s 

sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense or his character. 

The trial court’s carefully crafted sentence is not an “outlier” that requires 

appellate revision. See Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225. We affirm Rivard’s 

sentence.

[9] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Bradford, J., concur.