Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1704-CR-807 | September 6, 2017 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

Elizabeth A. Bellin

Elkhart, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Christina D. Pace

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Charles N. Peete,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

September 6, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A03-1704-CR-807

Appeal from the Elkhart Superior 

Court

The Honorable Stephen R. 

Bowers, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

20D02-1610-F4-51

Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1704-CR-807 | September 6, 2017 Page 2 of 6

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Defendant, Charles N. Peete (Peete), appeals his sentence for

burglary, a Level 4 felony, Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1(1), and his adjudication as an

habitual offender, I.C. § 35-50-2-8(a). 

[2] We affirm.

ISSUE

[3] Peete presents us with one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether his 

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

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] A little after 8:00 a.m. on October 20, 2016, Cynthia Peters (Peters) was at her 

home on Grand Avenue in Elkhart, Indiana, when she heard “loud noises from 

outside” which “sounded like banging.” (Transcript p. 54). When she looked 

out of her front window, she noticed a man, walking north towards her house 

and as she “was watching him [she] saw him turn back around and head back 

to” the house across the street, where Patricia (Patricia) and Joseph Lese 

(collectively, Lese) resided. (Tr. p. 65). Peters described him as stocky built, 

wearing a light grey hoodie, blue jeans, and a blue shirt. He was not carrying 

anything at that time and was acting “like he was looking to see if anyone was 

seeing what was going on.” (Tr. p. 67). While she observed the man walking 

onto the Lese residence’s porch, Peters called dispatch. She noticed the living 

room lights go on inside the residence, and approximately three to four minutes 

later, Peters saw the living room lights go off, and observed the man exit the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1704-CR-807 | September 6, 2017 Page 3 of 6

back door. “At this time he was carrying a bag.” (Tr. p. 70). The man got into 

a two-tone Chevy Avalanche with the word ‘Avalanche’ displayed in red on the 

passenger side. 

[5] Officer Rufino Gayton with the Elkhart Police Department (Officer Gayton) 

responded to a dispatch of a burglary in progress. As he drove past the Lese’s

residence, the officer observed the Avalanche pull out of the neighborhood onto 

Indiana Avenue. With the help of other officers, Officer Gayton initiated a 

traffic stop of the vehicle, during which the driver, fitting Peters’ description, 

was identified as Peete. When Officer Gayton opened the driver’s side door, a 

black drawstring bag, containing a bracelet, fell out of the vehicle. Inside the 

driver’s side door panel, the officers discovered several rings and also found a 

ring on the driver’s side floorboard, as well as a camouflage bag on the 

passenger seat. Lese positively identified the jewelry as belonging to Patricia. 

[6] On October 24, 2016, the State filed an Information, charging Peete with Level 

4 burglary and an habitual offender enhancement. A bifurcated jury trial was 

held on February 14 and 15, 2017. At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury 

found Peete guilty of the burglary charge, after which Peete pled guilty to the 

habitual offender enhancement. On March 13, 2017, the trial court conducted 

a sentencing hearing, where Peete was sentenced to an executed term of twelve 

years for burglary, enhanced by fifteen years for the habitual offender 

adjudication, for an aggregate sentence of twenty-seven years.

[7] Peete now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1704-CR-807 | September 6, 2017 Page 4 of 6

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

[8] Peete contends that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence 

which is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. 

Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), we 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.” Under this rule, the question is not whether another 

sentence is more appropriate, but whether the sentence imposed is 

inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The 

principal role of appellate review is to “leaven the outliers;” it is “not to achieve 

a perceived correct result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 

1225 (Ind. 2008). The appropriateness of the sentence turns on this court’s

“sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage 

done to others, and a myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” 

Id. at 1224. The defendant carries the burden of persuading this court that his 

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

To successfully carry his burden, “[t]he defendant must show that his sentence 

is inappropriate in light of both his character and the nature of the offense.” 

Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 633 (Ind. 2006). 

[9] When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting 

point to determine the appropriateness of a sentence. Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 

494. The sentencing range for a Level 4 felony is between two and twelve

years, with the advisory sentence being six years. See I.C. § 35-50-2-5.5. Here, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1704-CR-807 | September 6, 2017 Page 5 of 6

the trial court sentenced Peete to the maximum sentence allowed by statute, 

which the trial court then enhanced by fifteen years for his habitual offender 

adjudication. See I.C. § 35-50-2-8(i)(1) (the enhancement for a Level 4 felony 

shall be an additional fixed term between six years and twenty years). We 

agree with Peete that there is nothing notably distinguishable about the 

circumstances of the charge; we merely reiterate that Peete burglarized the 

residence while the Lese’s were absent from the home. 

[10] Turning to Peete’s character, we note that, at age fifty, Peete has a lengthy 

criminal history, showing contacts with the criminal justice system since he was 

eighteen years old. His history encompasses six prior misdemeanor 

convictions, including two convictions for criminal conversion, and five prior 

felony convictions including theft, fraud, and three convictions for burglary, 

two of which were Class B felonies. At the time of sentencing, he had one 

misdemeanor charge for theft pending. Peete has violated probation on at least 

five separate occasions. 

[11] Peete now requests this court for leniency because “the victim had all of the 

items returned to her within a relatively short period of time of the offense.” 

(Appellant’s Br. p. 11). However, the only reason all the items were even 

recovered in the first place is because of the alertness of a neighbor. Although

he claims that he isn’t the “worst of the worst,” we agree with the trial court’s 

sentiment that he has “been taking things from other people most of [his] life.” 

(Appellant’s Br. p. 11) (Tr. p. 231). In light of the evidence before us, we 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1704-CR-807 | September 6, 2017 Page 6 of 6

conclude that Peete failed to persuade us that the nature of the crime and his 

character provide a reason to revise his sentence.

CONCLUSION

[12] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court properly sentenced 

Peete.

[13] Affirmed.

[14] Robb, J. and Pyle, J. concur