Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1411-CR-482 | July 17, 2015 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

Amanda O. Blackketter

Blackketter Law, LLC

Shelbyville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Richard C. Webster

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Thomas Daniel Sayre,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff,

July 17, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

73A01-1411-CR-482

Appeal from the Shelby Superior

Court

The Honorable Jack A. Tandy, 

Judge

Cause No. 73D01-1403-FC-32

Robb, Judge.

Case Summary and Issue

[1] Thomas Sayre entered a plea of guilty to robbery, a Class C felony, and was 

sentenced to seven years executed at the Indiana Department of Correction 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1411-CR-482 | July 17, 2015 Page 2 of 6

(“DOC”). Sayre appeals, raising the sole issue of whether his sentence, and in 

particular his placement in DOC, is inappropriate in light of the nature of his 

offense and of his character. Concluding his sentence is not inappropriate, we 

affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On March 14, 2014, Sayre offered to sell five pounds of marijuana for $5,000 to 

James Jones, who was an undercover detective. Sayre arranged to meet 

Detective Jones at a gas station in Shelbyville, Indiana, and told Jones he 

would be in a blue Honda. Sayre’s brother drove Sayre to the gas station where 

Sayre spoke with Devon Jones, his cousin, who was there in another vehicle. 

When Detective Jones arrived, Sayre walked to Detective Jones’s vehicle, and 

Detective Jones handed him an envelope containing the money. Sayre returned 

to his vehicle and acted as though he was going to reach inside to get the drugs. 

Instead, he jumped into the passenger seat and his brother drove away at a high 

rate of speed. Devon Jones followed in his vehicle to act as a blockade. Sayre 

and his brother initially got away and took the money to a nearby casino. 

Police located them later that day, and Sayre admitted his involvement in the 

incident, claiming responsibility for the setup and stating he had basically 

bribed his brother and cousin to participate. 

[3] The State charged Sayre with conspiracy to commit robbery, a Class C felony; 

robbery, a Class C felony; theft, a Class D felony; conspiracy to commit theft, a 

Class D felony; money laundering, a Class D felony; and alleged he was an 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1411-CR-482 | July 17, 2015 Page 3 of 6

habitual offender. Sayre eventually entered into a plea agreement whereby he 

entered a plea of guilty to robbery, a Class C felony; the State dismissed the 

remaining charges and the habitual offender allegation; and the sentence was to 

be determined by the trial court. At the sentencing hearing, Sayre 

acknowledged his drug addiction and asked the trial court to consider placing 

him in a Purposeful Incarceration program1to address his drug issues: “I’m not 

necessarily asking for less time, I, I guess what I’m asking for is, I don’t want 

out of, out of my charges, you know. But I really [sic] asking is, seeking for is 

drug treatment, because that’s what, that’s what always brings me down.” 

Transcript at 38-39.

[4] The trial court accepted the plea and found Sayre guilty of robbery as a Class C 

felony. With respect to sentencing, the trial court stated:

In terms of reviewing your situation I’ll find three aggravating 

circumstances, the first being your criminal history . . . . Probation 

counted seven prior felony convictions and nine prior misdemeanor 

convictions, so you certainly have a significant criminal history 

especially in light of your age.[2] The second aggravator I’ll find is that 

you have, we’ve tried lesser restrictive type sentencing, including 

probation in the past, and those have not been successful because you 

violated those various programs. The third . . . aggravator I’ll find is 

that . . . the unique circumstances of the crime pose a danger to several 

 

1

Purposeful Incarceration is described on the DOC website as a cooperative project between DOC and 

Indiana courts where the DOC “works in collaboration with Judges who can sentence chemically addicted 

offenders and document that they will ‘consider a sentence modification’ should the offender successfully 

complete [a] . . . Therapeutic community.” Therapeutic communities “provide intensive substance abuse 

treatment . . . that hold the offenders highly accountable.” Purposeful Incarceration, 

http://www.in.gov/idoc/2798.htm (last visited July 15, 2015).

2

Sayre testified that he would “[b]e twenty six.” Tr. at 36.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1411-CR-482 | July 17, 2015 Page 4 of 6

people . . . people driving by there, the innocent people as well as the 

police officers, beyond what is normally present in a robbery situation . 

. . . On the mitigating side of things I’ll find one mitigator that being 

your, taking responsibility by pleading guilty and I agree with the state 

on this point that that is somewhat lessened by the circumstances and 

the benefit that you received of having the habitual dismissed . . . . 

Sentence you to seven years at the [DOC], to be served on an executed 

basis . . . . Recommend to the [DOC] that you receive substance abuse 

and mental health treatment while you’re within the department.

Tr. at 42-43. Sayre now appeals his sentence.

Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review

[5] Article VII, Sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorize independent 

appellate review and revision of sentences through Appellate Rule 7(B), which 

provides that a 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.” Reid v. State, 876 N.E.2d 1114, 1116 (Ind. 2007). The defendant has 

the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 

848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

II. Inappropriate Sentence

[6] Sayre does not challenge the length of the sentence imposed by the trial court. 

Instead, he challenges the trial court’s order that he serve his sentence in the 

DOC. The place where a sentence is to be served is subject to Rule 7(B) review. 

Biddinger v. State, 868 N.E.2d 407, 414 (Ind. 2007). However, it is “quite 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1411-CR-482 | July 17, 2015 Page 5 of 6

difficult” for a defendant to prevail on a claim that his placement is 

inappropriate because “the question under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether 

another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the 

sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 343-44 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (emphasis in original).

[7] Here, the record shows Sayre asked the trial court to identify him as a 

Purposeful Incarceration offender, but the trial court did not do so. Although 

the trial court did not specifically address Sayre’s request and the reasons for 

denying it, it is clear from the trial court’s sentencing statement that Sayre’s 

criminal history, and in particular, his failure to respond to less restrictive 

placements factored into the trial court’s placement decision. Despite not 

ordering Purposeful Incarceration, the trial court did recommend Sayre receive 

substance abuse treatment while incarcerated. Sayre claims that because of 

“the particular circumstances of Sayre’s drug use and addiction, placement in 

the [DOC] will make drug treatment unsuccessful for this particular defendant.” 

Appellant’s Brief at 6. 

[8] We are not convinced that the trial court’s imposition of an executed sentence 

and the provision of substance abuse and mental health treatment in the DOC 

instead of Purposeful Incarceration is inappropriate. The record reveals the 

nature of Sayre’s offense involved bribing his relatives to assist him in 

committing a robbery and imperiling others as they fled from the scene. 

Although there is nothing particularly egregious about this, we conclude that 

Sayre’s character justifies his placement with DOC.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1411-CR-482 | July 17, 2015 Page 6 of 6

[9] At twenty-six years of age, Sayre has an extensive criminal history as both a 

juvenile and as an adult, including, as particularly relevant to this charge, 

multiple convictions for property offenses. He has violated probation each time 

he has been placed on it, and he committed the instant offense while on parole. 

He has not reformed his behavior as a result of his past incarcerations or in 

response to past leniency. Sayre does have a long-standing and apparently 

serious drug problem. However, on the occasions he has been ordered into 

drug treatment, he has failed to take advantage of it, and he has not 

affirmatively sought treatment on his own before requesting this grace from the 

trial court. Drug treatment of any kind in any place will only be successful for 

Sayre if he is willing to battle and overcome his addiction, and Sayre has not 

shown that the DOC will be unable to offer adequate opportunities to address 

his substance abuse issues.

Conclusion

[10] After due consideration of the trial court’s decision and our own assessment of 

Sayre’s character, we cannot say that placement in the DOC is inappropriate.

[11] Affirmed.

May, J., and Mathias, J., concur.