Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1409-CR-667 | July 24, 2015 Page 1 of 7

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

Steven Knecht

Vonderheide & Knecht, P.C.

Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Kelly A. Miklos

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Manuel Guzman,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

July 24, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

79A02-1409-CR-667

Appeal from the Tippecanoe 

Superior Court

The Honorable Thomas H. Busch, 

Judge

Cause No. 79D02-1305-FA-6

Bailey, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] After the trial court accepted a plea agreement, Manuel Guzman (“Guzman”) 

was convicted of a single count of Dealing in Methamphetamine, as a Class A 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1409-CR-667 | July 24, 2015 Page 2 of 7

felony,1 and was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment, with four years to be 

served in Community Corrections and five years suspended to probation. 

Guzman now appeals, challenging as inappropriate the trial court’s sentencing 

order with respect to the duration of the executed portion of his sentence.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] We take our facts from the single charge to which Guzman entered a guilty 

plea.

[4] On May 3, 2013, Guzman knowingly manufactured methamphetamine while 

in, on, or within one thousand feet of two family housing complexes or an 

elementary school. (App’x at 36.)

[5] On May 8, 2013, Guzman was charged with Conspiracy to Manufacture 

Methamphetamine, as a Class A felony;2 Dealing in Methamphetamine, as a 

Class A felony; Possession of Methamphetamine, as a Class B felony;3

Possession of Chemical Agents or Precursors with Intent to Manufacture, as a 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1. Our General Assembly enacted wide-reaching revisions of Indiana’s criminal 

statutes, which took effect after the date of Guzman’s offense. We refer to those statutory provisions in effect 

at the time of Guzman’s proceedings before the trial court.

2

I.C. §§ 35-41-5-2 & 35-48-4.1-1.

3

I.C. § 35-48-4-6.1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1409-CR-667 | July 24, 2015 Page 3 of 7

Class C felony;4two counts of Possession of a Schedule IV Controlled 

Substance, as Class C felonies;5 Possession of Paraphernalia, as a Class A 

misdemeanor;6 and Operating a Vehicle while Suspended, as a Class A 

misdemeanor.7 Guzman was also alleged to be a Habitual Substance Offender.8

[6] On January 16, 2014, the State moved to amend the charging information as to 

the counts for Conspiracy to Manufacture Methamphetamine, Dealing in 

Methamphetamine, and Possession of Chemical Agents or Precursors with 

Intent to Manufacture. The trial court granted the motion.

[7] On March 21, 2014, Guzman and the State entered into a plea agreement, 

whereby Guzman agreed to enter a plea of guilty as to Dealing in 

Methamphetamine, as a Class A felony, as charged. In exchange for the guilty 

plea, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges. Sentencing was left to 

the trial court’s discretion. The trial court accepted the agreement.

[8] During the course of the proceedings, one of Guzman’s court-appointed 

attorneys was forced to withdraw from the representation due to a conflict of 

interest in the case. Guzman raised concerns with the performance of his 

 

4

I.C. § 35-48-4-14.5.

5

I.C. § 35-48-4-7.

6

I.C. § 35-48-4-8.3.

7

I.C. § 9-24-19-2.

8

I.C. § 35-50-2-10.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1409-CR-667 | July 24, 2015 Page 4 of 7

subsequent appointed counsel. These factors resulted in a delay of Guzman’s 

sentencing hearing until August 20, 2014.

[9] During the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied a motion from Guzman’s 

second court-appointed counsel to withdraw from the representation. After 

reviewing the presentencing report and hearing argument from the parties, the 

trial court sentenced Guzman to twenty years imprisonment, with eleven years 

to be executed in the Indiana Department of Correction, four years to be served 

with the Tippecanoe County Community Corrections, and five years suspended 

to probation.

[10] This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[11] In this appeal, Guzman argues that his sentence is inappropriate. The authority 

granted to this Court by Article 7, § 6 of the Indiana Constitution permitting 

appellate review and revision of criminal sentences is implemented through 

Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides: “The 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.” Under this rule, and as interpreted by case 

law, appellate courts may revise sentences after due consideration of the trial 

court’s decision, if the sentence is found to be inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Cardwell v. State, 895 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1409-CR-667 | July 24, 2015 Page 5 of 7

N.E.2d 1219, 1222-25 (Ind. 2008); Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852, 856-57 (Ind. 

2003). The principal role of such review is to attempt to leaven the outliers. 

Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225.

[12] Here, Guzman was convicted of Dealing in Methamphetamine, as a Class A 

felony. Accordingly, Guzman faced a sentencing range running from twenty to 

fifty years of imprisonment, with an advisory term of thirty years. I.C. § 35-50-

2-4. Guzman received the minimum term of twenty years; with five years of 

the sentence suspended to probation, eleven years of the sentence were to be 

served in the Indiana Department of Correction, and four years were to be 

served with Tippecanoe County Community Corrections.

[13] Turning first to Guzman’s argument concerning the nature of his offense, we 

have little evidence other than the facts as alleged in the charging information 

and factual statements drawn from the affidavit of probable cause. 

Nevertheless, we observe that the gravamen of Guzman’s argument as to this 

factor in Appellate Rule 7(B) is that Guzman received a more severe term of 

executed time than his co-defendant, who was convicted of Class C and D 

felonies and who allegedly taught Guzman how to make methamphetamine. 

Guzman is correct that sentencing of a co-defendant may be considered in 

reviewing the inappropriateness vel non of a defendant’s sentence. However, 

based upon the category of offense to which Guzman pled guilty, Guzman 

received the lowest possible difference between the length of his sentence and 

that of his co-defendant. We think, then, that the nature of Guzman’s offense 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1409-CR-667 | July 24, 2015 Page 6 of 7

and his comparative culpability do not support a conclusion that his sentence 

was inappropriate.

[14] We now turn to Guzman’s character. As he notes, Guzman has led a very 

difficult life, with a very abusive childhood environment, few educational 

opportunities, ongoing medical issues, childhood exposure to substance abuse, 

and even compelled substance abuse while he was a child. Guzman also has a 

history of mental health diagnoses that may have been incorrect, and has taken 

steps to address his educational situation by obtaining a GED as an adult. The 

trial court took all of this into account in sentencing Guzman to a minimum 

sentence, and granted him probation and community corrections placement for 

nearly half of that.

[15] Yet Guzman also has a long history of criminal convictions resulting from a 

history of substance abuse, and has not taken advantage of numerous 

opportunities for rehabilitation. Guzman also has a prior conviction for 

Domestic Battery, and was facing criminal charges in two other cases at the 

time of his guilty plea hearing. While Guzman entered a guilty plea in this 

case, we observe that he derived substantial benefit in doing so, by avoiding the 

possibility of conviction and sentencing for numerous additional charges.

[16] In light of the foregoing, we cannot conclude that a minimum sentence, with 

substantial portions of that sentence ordered to be spent in a community 

corrections program or suspended to probation—the award of which leniency is 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1409-CR-667 | July 24, 2015 Page 7 of 7

a matter of grace on the part of the trial court, Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 

(Ind. 1999)—was inappropriate.

[17] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Barnes, J., concur.