Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 76A04-1611-CR-2616 | June 23, 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

Adam C. Squiller

Squiller & Hamilton, LLP

Auburn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

James B. Martin

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Paul Michael Kage, Jr.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

June 23, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

76A04-1611-CR-2616

Appeal from the Steuben Superior 

Court

The Honorable William C. Fee, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

76D01-1509-F5-750

Mathias, Judge.

[1] Paul Michael Kage, Jr., ("Kage") was convicted in Steuben Superior Court of 

Level 5 felony operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life, and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 76A04-1611-CR-2616 | June 23, 2017 Page 2 of 5

he was ordered to serve six years executed in the Department of Correction. 

Kage was also adjudicated a habitual offender and was ordered to serve an 

additional two years executed. Kage appeals and argues that his aggregate 

eight-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his 

character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On September 27, 2015, Indiana State Police Trooper Chris Kinsey (“Trooper 

Kinsey”) observed Kage leave a gas station in a vehicle. Trooper Kinsey knew 

Kage from past law enforcement contact and confirmed with a license check by 

Steuben County Communications that Kage was a habitual traffic violator. 

Trooper Kinsey and Patrolman Matt Kling of the Angola Police Department 

subsequently stopped and arrested Kage without incident. 

[4] Kage was charged with Level 5 felony operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture 

of license for life. He was also charged as a habitual offender based on more 

than two prior, unrelated felonies. In September 2016, a jury trial was held and 

Kage was convicted of both charges.

[5] Kage's sentencing hearing was held on October 17, 2016. The trial court 

observed that Kage’s decision to operate his vehicle despite knowing that he 

had forfeited his license was not mitigated by any emergency circumstance. The 

trial court considered Kage’s criminal history as an aggravating circumstance.

In addition to the four prior felony convictions used in the state’s habitual 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 76A04-1611-CR-2616 | June 23, 2017 Page 3 of 5

offender allegation against him, Kage’s criminal history includes numerous

prior felony and misdemeanor convictions. These include convictions for drug 

offenses, battery, invasion of privacy, operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and 

other driving-related offenses. Kage’s criminal history also includes four 

probation revocations. The trial court found no mitigating factors. The trial 

court ordered Kage to serve an aggregate sentence of eight years executed in the 

Department of Correction. Kage now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

[6] Kage argues that his aggregate eight-year executed sentence is inappropriate in 

light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Indiana 

Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “[t]he 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 conducting our review, “[w]e do not look 

to determine if the sentence was appropriate; instead, we look to make sure the 

sentence was not inappropriate.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 

2012). “[S]entencing is principally a discretionary function in which the trial 

court's judgment should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 

N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008). “Such deference should prevail unless 

overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the 

offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the 

defendant's character (such as substantial virtuous traits of persistent examples 

of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). Kage 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 76A04-1611-CR-2616 | June 23, 2017 Page 4 of 5

bears the burden to establish that his sentence is inappropriate. Rutherford v. 

State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). 

[7] When considering the nature of the offense, we observe that "the advisory 

sentence is the starting point the Legislature selected as appropriate for the 

crime committed." Pierce v. State, 949 N.E.2d 349, 352 (Ind. 2011). Courts may 

consider the advisory sentence for a crime when imposing a sentence, but courts 

are not required to use an advisory sentence. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-1.3(a-b). The 

advisory sentence for a Level 5 felony is three years, with a sentencing range of 

one to six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b). Kage's six-year sentence is the 

maximum available in the Level 5 felony sentencing range. Courts may 

sentence habitual offenders convicted of a Level 5 felony to an additional fixed 

term between two and six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(i)(2). Kage's two-year 

habitual offender enhancement results in an aggregate sentence of eight years. 

When evaluating whether a sentence is inappropriate, “appellate review should 

focus on the forest – the aggregate sentence – rather than the trees – consecutive

or concurrent... or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Cardwell, 

895 N.E.2d at 1225. 

[8] The nature of Kage's offense is closely related to the nature of Kage's character. 

Excluding his juvenile criminal history, Kage has exhibited “constant criminal 

activity” since 1997. Appellant’s App. p. 27. The trial court agreed with the 

presentence investigation report conclusion; Kage's criminal history is 

“massive.” Tr. p. 105. His criminal history includes the following offenses 

related to his current offense: two convictions for operating vehicle while 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 76A04-1611-CR-2616 | June 23, 2017 Page 5 of 5

intoxicated, one conviction for driving while suspended, one conviction for 

driving while license not valid, one conviction for habitual traffic offender, and 

one conviction for operating a motor vehicle after a lifetime suspension. Past 

offenses unrelated to the present offense include convictions relating to 

violence, invasion of privacy, drugs, and alcohol. The trial court characterized 

Kage’s criminal history as “on point” with the nature of his present crime. Tr. 

p. 105. 

[9] The trial court found that although Kage cooperated during his arrest and 

respected the court proceedings, his behavior did little to mitigate “a criminal 

history that is this long.” Tr. p. 106. In the court's view, Kage's pattern of 

recidivism is “reflective of [his] mindset” and “disrespectful of the rule of law.”

Tr. p. 105-6. Considering the length of Kage's criminal history and its relation 

to his most recent convictions, we agree with the trial court that the aggregate 

eight-year sentence is “earned and appropriate.” Tr. p. 106. We conclude that 

Kage has not met his burden of persuading us that his eight-year sentence is 

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

offender. See Anglemyer, 896 N.E.2d at 494. 

[10] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Altice, J., concur.