Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-39| July 27, 2020 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

Kimberly A. Jackson

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Sierra A. Murray

Deputy Attorney General

Alexis G. Sizemore

Certified Legal Intern

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

James Darren Pearman,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

July 27, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-39

Appeal from the Vermillion Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Jill Wesch, Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

83C01-1811-F6-171

83C01-1908-F6-139

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-39| July 27, 2020 Page 2 of 6

[1] James Darren Pearman appeals his aggregate sentence for theft and two counts 

of possession of methamphetamine as level 6 felonies. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On November 13, 2018, Pearman knowingly or intentionally possessed pure or 

adulterated methamphetamine. That same day, he committed theft of a TC-70 

handheld scanner worth at least $750 from Walmart. On November 15, 2018, 

the State charged Pearman under cause number 83C01-1811-F6-171 (“Cause 

No. 171”) with possession of methamphetamine and theft as level 6 felonies, 

possession of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor, and possession of 

paraphernalia as a class C misdemeanor. The State also alleged that he was an

habitual offender.

[3] On August 22, 2019, while on bond with respect to the charges under Cause 

No. 171, Pearman knowingly possessed methamphetamine. On August 23, 

2019, the State charged Pearman under cause number 83C01-1908-F6-139 

(“Cause No. 139”) with possession of methamphetamine as a level 6 felony and 

operating a motor vehicle while driving privileges are suspended as a class A 

misdemeanor.

[4] On November 6, 2019, Pearman and the State entered into a plea agreement 

pursuant to which Pearman agreed to plead guilty to possession of 

methamphetamine and theft as level 6 felonies under Cause No. 171 and

possession of methamphetamine as a level 6 felony under Cause No. 139, and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-39| July 27, 2020 Page 3 of 6

the State agreed to dismiss the other charges and allegation that he was an 

habitual offender.

[5] At a hearing on December 3, 2019, the trial court accepted the plea agreement. 

Pearman testified that he had a drug addiction for about twenty years. When 

asked about the sort of prior treatment he had for drug addiction, he answered: 

“Hamilton Center, AA classes, NA classes. I just done the MRT program.” 

Transcript Volume II at 68. He indicated that he started the MRT program

after he was incarcerated and had just completed it. When asked if there was 

some concern about his release given his addiction, he answered: “I’m not 

concerned. I’m done with it.” Id. at 71. When asked if he could use help upon 

being released from jail, he answered: “Well, yes. I could use some help, yes. 

A sponsor.” Id. Defense counsel introduced and the court admitted a letter 

from the Resident Coordinator of Salvaged Lives Life Center indicating that 

there was a bed available for Pearman. Pearman indicated he might be able to 

do home detention. 

[6] Pearman’s wife stated that she did not post the bond for him in part because she 

wanted him to “dry out” and “get the drugs out of his system.” Id. at 75. She 

testified that she observed a positive change in Pearman since he had been in 

jail. She stated that “home detention would not be an option” and she thought 

participating in the Salvaged Lives Life Center would “be the best.” Id. at 76. 

[7] The court found Pearman’s completion of the MRT program during his 

incarceration and his guilty plea to be mitigating factors. It found his criminal 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-39| July 27, 2020 Page 4 of 6

history to be an aggravating circumstance, stating, “Mr. Pearman, the reason 

the Court is sentencing you to the Department of Corrections, your aggravating 

circumstance is your criminal history. It’s quite lengthy. Four felonies, 12 prior 

misdemeanors and these two felonies. One was committed while you were out 

on bond for the other.” Id. at 81.

[8] In Cause No. 171, the trial court sentenced Pearman to concurrent terms of two 

and one-half years each for possession of methamphetamine and theft. In 

Cause No. 139, it sentenced Pearman to one and one-half years for possession 

of methamphetamine and ordered that he serve the sentence consecutively to 

the sentence imposed under Cause No. 171. In both cases, the court

recommended Recovery While Incarcerated and noted it would consider a 

modification of the sentence upon successful completion of the clinically 

appropriate substance abuse treatment program as determined by the 

Department of Correction.

Discussion

[9] The issue is whether Pearman’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature 

of the offenses and his character. Pearman argues that his sentence is 

inappropriate because his offenses were the product of his long-term addiction 

for which he had never received intensive treatment and he has demonstrated 

his commitment to future sobriety since being incarcerated.

[10] 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 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-39| July 27, 2020 Page 5 of 6

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).

[11] Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b) provides that a person who commits a level 6 felony 

shall be imprisoned for a fixed term between six months and two and one-half 

years, with the advisory sentence being one year.

[12] Our review of the nature of the offenses reveals that Pearman knowingly or 

intentionally possessed pure or adulterated methamphetamine and committed 

theft of a TC-70 handheld scanner worth at least $750 from Walmart. While on 

bond for these offenses, he knowingly possessed methamphetamine.

[13] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Pearman pled guilty to 

theft and two counts of possession of methamphetamine as level 6 felonies and

the State agreed to dismiss charges of possession of marijuana as a class B 

misdemeanor, possession of paraphernalia as a class C misdemeanor, and 

operating a motor vehicle while driving privileges are suspended as a class A 

misdemeanor, as well as the allegation that Pearman was an habitual offender.

Pearman testified at the guilty plea hearing that he has had a drug addiction 

problem for about twenty years and, prior to his arrest, he used 

methamphetamine daily. He also testified that he previously received addiction 

treatment through the Hamilton Center as a condition of probation and 

attended AA and NA classes. While incarcerated, he completed the MRT
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-39| July 27, 2020 Page 6 of 6

program and continued to attend classes after graduating. When asked about 

his concern regarding his drug addiction after release, Pearman stated “I’m not 

concerned. I’m done with it.” Transcript 70-71. 

[14] As a juvenile, Pearman had adjudications for criminal mischief, conversion, 

and possession of marijuana. As an adult, Pearman has been convicted of four 

felonies and twelve misdemeanors. His convictions include sexual misconduct 

with a minor, theft, retail theft, domestic battery, operating a vehicle with a

BAC of .08 or more, battery resulting in bodily injury, resisting law 

enforcement, possession of paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana. He has 

violated terms of his probation three times and has been unsatisfactorily 

discharged from probation three times.

[15] After due consideration, we conclude that Pearman has not sustained his 

burden of establishing that his aggregate sentence of four years is inappropriate 

in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

[16] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Pearman’s sentence.

[17] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.