Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3149 | July 16, 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

Valerie K. Boots

Marion County Public Defender Agency 

– Appellate Division

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Evan Matthew Comer

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kyla Taylor,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

July 16, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-3149

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable David M. Hooper, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49G12-1806-CM-19620

Mathias, Judge.

[1] Kyla Taylor (“Taylor”) pleaded guilty in Marion Superior Court to Class A 

misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. The trial court sentenced 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3149 | July 16, 2019 Page 2 of 5

Taylor to 365 days, with two days credit time and 363 days suspended. The trial 

court ordered 180 days of non-reporting probation. Taylor appeals and argues 

her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the 

character of the offender. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In November 2017, Taylor purchased a handgun for personal protection. Tr. p. 

9. She worked in adult entertainment and frequently encountered harassment 

from customers after her shift ended. Id. She did not obtain a handgun permit. 

Id. at 6. 

[3] On June 18, 2018, Taylor lent her phone to a group of men at a gas station. Id. 

at 9. She did not know the men and was unaware that the Indianapolis 

Metropolitan Police Department was searching for the men in connection with 

a stolen vehicle. Id., Appellant’s App. p. 15. The police arrived at the scene 

while Taylor was standing next to the stolen vehicle and wanted men. 

Appellant’s App. p. 15. The police detained and searched Taylor. Id. She told 

the police that she had a handgun in her purse and stated she had never 

attempted to obtain a permit. Id. The police confirmed Taylor did not have a 

valid handgun permit and placed her under arrest. Id. 

[4] Taylor was charged with and pleaded guilty to one count of Class A 

misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. Id. at 16. The trial court 

gave the following sentencing statement:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3149 | July 16, 2019 Page 3 of 5

Well, this is difficult. I understand how seriously the State takes 

its gun charges. And, requesting some sort of probation makes 

sense. I completely understand the defendant’s story. . . She just 

should have got [sic] a permit. . . She has no criminal history and 

she’s obviously indigent. I don’t think she’s likely to reoffend. . . 

We’re just going to make sure, Ms. Taylor, yeah, that you are not 

going to reoffend; okay? So there’s going to be time hanging over 

your head if you violate non-reporting probation for six 

months...[A]ll you’ve got to do is not get in trouble. 

Tr. pp. 12–13. The trial court sentenced Taylor to 365 days, with two days 

credit time and 363 days suspended. Id. at 13. She was also given 180 days of 

non-reporting probation. Id. The trial judge ordered Taylor’s handgun returned 

to her as long as she could legally carry the gun. Id. at 14. Taylor now appeals, 

arguing her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the 

character of the offender. 

Discussion and Decision

[5] Appellate courts may revise a sentence if the court finds the sentence is 

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

offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). The question is whether the defendant’s 

sentence is inappropriate, not whether another sentence is more appropriate. 

King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The principal role of 

Rule 7(B) is to “leaven the outliers” rather than to “achieve a perceived ‘correct’ 

result[.]” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Appellate courts 

thus conduct Rule 7(B) sentencing review with substantial deference to the trial 

court’s sentencing decision. Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3149 | July 16, 2019 Page 4 of 5

Taylor argues that her sentence is inappropriately harsh because the trial court 

imposed the maximum allowable sentence. Appellant’s Br. at 6. A defendant 

convicted of a Class A misdemeanor faces a maximum term of incarceration for 

one year. Ind Code § 35-50-3-2. Taylor was sentenced to 365 days. 

[6] In assessing whether a sentence is inappropriate, appellate courts may consider 

all aspects of a defendant’s sentence, including whether a portion of the 

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

[7] Although Taylor received a 365-day sentence, 363 days were suspended, and 

she spent a single day in jail. In regard to the nature of the offense, we cannot 

conclude that a serving a single day in jail is an inappropriately harsh sentence 

for carrying an unlicensed handgun in violation of the law. In regard to the

nature of the offender, the trial court noted that Taylor has no adult criminal 

history and is unlikely to reoffend. Although the suspended sentence leaves 

open the possibility that Taylor could serve the full term of her sentence, a

combination of a suspended sentence and probation can serve as an incentive to 

encourage good behavior. See Jennings v. State, 982 N.E.2d 1003, 1008–09 (Ind. 

2003). As long as Taylor does not reoffend, she will have served a single day of 

jail time. A 365-day sentence with 363 days suspended and six months of nonreporting probation is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and 

the character of the offender. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3149 | July 16, 2019 Page 5 of 5

[8] Affirmed.

May, J., and Brown, J., concur.