Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-418 | June 14, 2019 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

John Kindley

South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Samantha M. Sumcad

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Darrell T. Green,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

June 14, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-418

Appeal from the Randolph Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Jay L. Toney, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

68C01-1804-F5-264

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-418 | June 14, 2019 Page 2 of 5

Statement of the Case

[1] Darrell T. Green appeals his sentence following his conviction for dealing in 

methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony, pursuant to a guilty plea. Green raises 

one issue for our review, namely, whether his sentence is inappropriate in light 

of the nature of the offense and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On September 21, 2017, Green sold 0.92 gram of methamphetamine to a 

confidential informant (“CI”) for the Randolph County Sheriff’s Department in 

exchange for $100. Green again sold 0.35 gram of methamphetamine to the CI 

in exchange for $40 on September 25. And, on October 4, Green sold 1.26 

grams of methamphetamine to the CI in exchange for $150. As a result, the 

State charged Green with one count of dealing in methamphetamine, as a Level 

4 felony; two counts of dealing in methamphetamine, as Level 5 felonies; three 

counts of possession of methamphetamine, as Level 6 felonies; and three counts 

of maintaining a common nuisance, as Level 6 felonies. 

[3] On October 2, 2018, Green pleaded guilty to one count of dealing in 

methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony. Pursuant to his guilty plea, the parties 

agreed that Green’s sentence would be three years, but that “[t]he amount of 

any suspended time, if any, as well as any probationary period, if any shall be 

left to the discretion of the Court.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 27. In exchange 

for his plea, the State dismissed the remaining charges. Following a hearing, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-418 | June 14, 2019 Page 3 of 5

the trial court accepted Green’s guilty plea. The court then sentenced Green to 

three years, all executed in the Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[4] Green contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and his character. 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.” This court 

has recently held that “[t]he advisory sentence is the starting point the 

legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” 

Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). And the Indiana 

Supreme Court has recently explained that: 

The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to 

leaven the outliers . . . but not achieve a perceived “correct” 

result in each case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 

2008). Defendant has the burden to persuade us that the 

sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Anglemyer v. 

State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind.), as amended (July 10, 2007), 

decision clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).

Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original). 

[5] Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate 

sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court’s judgment “should 

receive considerable deference.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. Whether we 

regard a sentence as inappropriate at the end of the day turns on “our sense of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-418 | June 14, 2019 Page 4 of 5

the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to 

others, and myriad other facts that come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224. 

The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather 

whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 

268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] 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 or persistent examples 

of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). 

[6] The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one year to six years, with an 

advisory sentence of three years. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b) (2018). Pursuant 

to the plea agreement, the court sentenced Green to a term of three years. The 

court identified as an aggravating factor Green’s criminal history, and the court 

found that there were no mitigating factors. Accordingly, the trial court 

ordered Green to execute all three years in the Department of Correction.

[7] On appeal, Green asserts that his “executed prison sentence for delivering meth 

to support his own habit is inappropriate for the simple and true reason that 

vices are not crimes[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 4. Specifically, he contends that his 

sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense because dealing in 

methamphetamine is simply “a vice, rather than a crime.” Reply Br. at 3. And

Green contends that, because dealing in methamphetamine is a vice rather than 

a crime, his character is “merely vicious” but not criminal. Id. (emphasis 

removed). In essence, Green contends that his sentence is inappropriate 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-418 | June 14, 2019 Page 5 of 5

because he did not commit a crime. But our legislature has clearly stated that

dealing in methamphetamine is a crime. See I.C. § 35-48-4-1.1.

[8] Green has not persuaded us that his sentence is inappropriate. Other than his 

simple assertion that dealing in methamphetamine is not a crime and that his 

character is merely vicious, Green does not make any other argument on appeal 

to explain why his executed sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of 

the offense or his character. Green received the bargained-for advisory sentence 

despite his extensive criminal history, which includes several felony convictions 

for dealing in marijuana or possession of a controlled substance and a prior 

probation violation. We cannot say that Green’s sentence in inappropriate, and 

we affirm his sentence.

[9] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Robb, J., concur.