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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

THOMAS W. VANES GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Crown Point, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

KATHERINE MODESITT COOPER

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

DERRICK ANTHONY EDWARDS, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 45A04-1308-CR-414

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE LAKE SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Thomas P. Stefaniak, Jr., Judge

Cause No. 45G04-1011-FB-118

March 17, 2014

MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BARNES, Judge
2

Case Summary

Derrick Edwards appeals his twelve-year sentence for Class B felony dealing in a 

narcotic drug. We affirm.

Issue

Edwards raises one issue, which we restate as whether his sentence is 

inappropriate. 

Facts

On September 18, 2009, Edwards met a confidential informant, drove to a housing 

project, and sold the confidential informant .5 grams of heroin for $200. The State later 

charged Edwards with five counts of Class B felony dealing in a narcotic drug or dealing 

in cocaine for various transactions involving the same confidential informant during the 

fall of 2009, including the September 18, 2009 transaction. Pursuant to the terms of a 

plea agreement, Edwards pled guilty to one count of Class B felony dealing in a narcotic 

drug, and the State dismissed the remaining charges. The trial court sentenced Edwards 

to twelve years in the Department of Correction. Edwards now appeals.

Analysis

Edwards argues that his twelve-year sentence is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate 

Rule 7(B) permits us to 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. Although Rule 7(B) does not 

require us to be “extremely” deferential to a trial court’s sentencing decision, we still 

must give due consideration to that decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 
3

(Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We also understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial 

court brings to its sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a defendant bears the burden 

of persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate.” Id.

The principal role of Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, 

and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement 

of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” 

Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). We “should focus on the forest—

the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of 

counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Id. Whether a sentence is 

inappropriate ultimately turns on 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. at 1224. When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence under Rule 7(B), 

we may consider all aspects of the penal consequences imposed by the trial court in 

sentencing the defendant, including whether a portion of the sentence was suspended. 

Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010).

Regarding the nature of the offense, we tend to agree with Edwards’s argument 

that the nature of the offense is not particularly egregious. Nevertheless, as Edwards 

points out, he was alleged to have committed similar offenses on four other occasions,

and those charges were dismissed pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement. Thus, this 

was not an isolated incident of misconduct. 

As for Edwards’s character, although he has extensive health problems, there is no 

indication that those health problems are related to the commission of the offense. 
4

Moreover, fifty-seven-year-old Edwards has an extensive criminal history spanning 

several decades. He has five felony convictions, one misdemeanor conviction, and two 

juvenile adjudications. Edwards has been arrested on numerous other occasions, and his 

drug history includes heroin use, showing his disregard for the law. Under these 

circumstances, we cannot conclude that his twelve-year sentence is inappropriate. 

Conclusion

Edwards has not established that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature 

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

Affirmed.

ROBB, J., and BROWN, J., concur.