Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 38A02-1707-CR-1604 | May 21, 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

Brandon E. Murphy

Cannon Bruns & Murphy, LLC

Muncie, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Jesse R. Drum

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Joshua A. Guntle,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

May 21, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

38A02-1707-CR-1604

Appeal from the Jay Circuit Court

The Honorable Brian D. 

Hutchison, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

38C01-1604-F5-21

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 38A02-1707-CR-1604 | May 21, 2018 Page 2 of 4

Case Summary

[1] Joshua Guntle (“Guntle”) appeals the five-year sentence imposed following his 

plea of guilty to Dealing in Methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony. He presents 

the sole issue of whether his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On August 21, 2014, Guntle received a box of pseudoephedrine from a 

confidential informant (“the C.I.”) and, in exchange therefor, provided the C.I. 

with methamphetamine. On April 21, 2016, the State of Indiana charged 

Guntle with Dealing in Methamphetamine. On June 1, 2017, after a jury was 

convened, Guntle pled guilty as charged. On June 27, 2017, Guntle was 

sentenced to five years imprisonment. He now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[3] Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-6(b) provides that a person convicted of a Level 5 

felony faces a sentencing range of one to six years, with an advisory sentence of 

three years. Guntle asks that we revise his sentence to four years, with two 

years suspended.

[4] Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), this “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.” In performing our review, we assess “the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 38A02-1707-CR-1604 | May 21, 2018 Page 3 of 4

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 v. 

State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). The principal role of such review is 

to attempt to leaven the outliers. Id. at 1225.

[5] We give “considerable deference” to the trial court’s judgment. Stephenson v. 

State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015) (citing Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222). 

“Such deference will prevail” unless it is overcome by compelling evidence that 

portrays in a positive light the nature of the offense and the defendant’s 

character. Id.

[6] As for the nature of the offense, Guntle gave methamphetamine to the C.I. in 

exchange for a box of pseudoephedrine. There is nothing particularly 

remarkable about this transaction.

[7] Guntle has a history of criminal offenses both before and after his commission 

of this offense in 2014. In 2012, he was convicted of theft, as a Class D felony. 

He was convicted of three misdemeanor offenses in 2008 and 2013. Less than 

one month after committing the instant offense, Guntle failed to return to 

lawful detention. He was convicted of a Level 6 felony for that conduct. Later 

in the same month, Guntle committed misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. 

On October 17, 2014, two months after the instant offense, Guntle possessed a 

narcotic drug and methamphetamine and resisted law enforcement. He pled 

guilty to the charges against him. At the time of his sentencing here, Guntle 

was facing additional charges that he dealt a narcotic drug and possessed a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 38A02-1707-CR-1604 | May 21, 2018 Page 4 of 4

syringe. Guntle has repeatedly violated the terms of probation and he was 

arrested while out on bond. Guntle’s criminal history and continued 

commission of drug-related offenses, together with his failure to benefit from 

prior opportunities for rehabilitation, speak ill of his character.

[8] Having reviewed the matter, we conclude that the trial court did not impose an 

inappropriate sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B), and the sentence does not 

warrant appellate revision. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the sentence 

imposed by the trial court.

[9] Affirmed.

Crone, J., and Brown, J., concur.