Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1607-CR-1481 | December 9, 2016 Page 1 of 6

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 C. Swanson, Jr.

Deputy Public Defender

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Richard C. Webster

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Gregory T. Clark, II,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

December 9, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

02A03-1607-CR-1481

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

The Honorable John F. Surbeck, 

Jr., Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

02D05-1602-F3-8

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1607-CR-1481 | December 9, 2016 Page 2 of 6

[1] Gregory T. Clark, II appeals his sentence for robbery as a level 3 felony. Clark 

raises one issue which we restate as whether his sentence is inappropriate based 

on the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 27, 2016, Clark knowingly and intentionally, while armed with a 

handgun, robbed a gas station in Fort Wayne, Indiana. On February 2, 2016, 

the State charged Clark with: Count I, robbery as a level 3 felony; Count II, 

unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon as a level 4 felony; 

and Count III, resisting law enforcement as a level 6 felony. On May 20, 2016, 

the court held a guilty plea hearing at which Clark pled guilty to Count I.1

 

[3] On June 13, 2016, the court held a sentencing hearing at which Clark indicated 

he did not have additions or corrections to the presentence investigation report 

(“PSI”). Clark’s counsel requested the court sentence him to the minimum 

executed sentence, noted that he had a revocation pending in Adams County

for which he would serve four years, and asked the court to consider Clark’s 

drug addiction. The State argued that the aggravating factors include Clark’s 

criminal history and failed efforts at rehabilitation, that he was on probation 

when he committed the present offense, and that he was placed in a high risk to 

reoffend category. Clark stated that he was diagnosed with epilepsy and could 

 

1 At the hearing, Clark’s counsel stated that Clark was “pleading straight up to Count I, and then at 

sentencing [the State was] going to dismiss 2 and 3, but it’s not in a plea agreement.” Guilty Plea Transcript 

at 4. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1607-CR-1481 | December 9, 2016 Page 3 of 6

not operate a forklift any longer and could not provide for himself, that he was 

never brought up to be a thief, that when he committed the crime he was not in 

his right mind and was overwhelmed with life, and that he needs to be there for 

his family. The court found Clark’s criminal history to be an aggravating 

circumstance and noted that it included a prior armed robbery. The court 

stated that it was clear that Clark had numerous opportunities to address his 

addiction and had chosen not to take them and found that his addiction was not 

a mitigating circumstance. It found Clark’s guilty plea to be a mitigating factor, 

and sentenced him to twelve years, ordered him to pay restitution of $485.32, 

and dismissed Counts II and III. 

Discussion

[4] The issue is whether Clark’s sentence is inappropriate based on the nature of the 

offense and his character. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “may 

revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial 

court’s decision, [we find] that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Under this rule, the 

burden is on the defendant to persuade the appellate court that his or her 

sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). 

Relief is available if, after due consideration of the trial court’s sentencing 

decision, this court finds that in its independent judgment, the sentence is 

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

offender. See Hines v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1216, 1225 (Ind. 2015). Sentencing is 

principally a discretionary function in which the trial court’s judgment should 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1607-CR-1481 | December 9, 2016 Page 4 of 6

receive considerable deference. Id. (citation omitted). Whether we regard a 

sentence as appropriate 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. (citation 

omitted). 

[5] Clark contends that, while the criminal conduct was significant, that fact was 

already reflected in the charge of robbery as a level 3 felony and there was no 

need to “double count” the conduct by further aggravating the sentence of an 

elevated charge. Appellant’s Brief at 8. He further argues that, since he was 

sixteen years old, he has been under the influence of an addiction to drugs and 

that the addiction explains his theft and possession charges. He requests that 

his sentence be revised to the minimum executed sentence with whatever 

addiction programs or services the court sees fit to order. 

[6] The State argues that this was Clark’s second conviction for armed robbery and 

that he was on probation for the previous robbery when he committed the 

instant one. It argues that Clark’s criminal career began as a juvenile and 

consists of two prior felony convictions, and that his criminal history shows that 

he learned nothing from his prior contacts with the criminal justice system and 

failed to take advantage of the opportunities that were presented to rehabilitate 

himself and live a productive and meaningful life. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1607-CR-1481 | December 9, 2016 Page 5 of 6

[7] A person who commits a level 3 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of 

between three and sixteen years, with the advisory sentence being nine years, see

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5, and the court sentenced Clark to twelve years. 

[8] With respect to the nature of the offense, the record reveals that in January 

2016 Clark knowingly and intentionally, while armed with a handgun, robbed a 

gas station and took $485.32. With respect to the character of the offender, 

Clark pled guilty to robbery as a level 3 felony and the other counts against him 

of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and resisting law 

enforcement were dismissed. The PSI indicates that, as a juvenile, Clark was 

adjudicated to be delinquent in 2006 for criminal mischief as a class B 

misdemeanor if committed by an adult and leaving home, and in 2007 for 

disorderly conduct as a class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult and 

possession of marijuana as a class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult, for 

which he was placed on probation and ordered to participate in drug/alcohol 

counseling and random urinalysis testing and for which he was unsatisfactorily 

discharged from probation. His criminal history as an adult includes 

convictions for two counts of criminal conversion as class A misdemeanors in 

2010, one for which he was sentenced to unsupervised probation and ordered to 

complete a “Caring About People Theft Intervention Program,” armed robbery 

as a class B felony in Adams County in April 2011 for which he was sentenced 

to fourteen years with four years suspended to probation, and possession of a 

controlled substance as a class D felony and resisting law enforcement as a class 

A misdemeanor in July 2011. Appellant’s Appendix, Volume 2, at 16. The PSI 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1607-CR-1481 | December 9, 2016 Page 6 of 6

further indicates that Clark was released to probation on June 6, 2014, in the 

Adams County case and was on probation in that cause at the time of the 

January 27, 2016 robbery. With respect to substance abuse, the PSI states that 

he reported he first tried alcohol at age seventeen, that he first tried marijuana at 

age eighteen and used every other day until 2010 when he quit, that he first 

tried cocaine in September 2015 and used daily until his present incarceration, 

and that he first used Xanax without a prescription on the day he committed 

the present offense. The PSI further states that Clark’s overall risk assessment 

score using the Indiana risk assessment system places him in the high risk to

reoffend category. 

[9] After due consideration, we conclude that Clark has not met his burden of 

establishing that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and his character. 

Conclusion

[10] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Clark’s sentence for robbery as a level 3 

felony. 

Affirmed. 

Vaidik, C.J., and Bradford, J., concur.