Title: Kucholick v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12S02-1211-CR-630
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: November 7, 2012

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
Bradley K. Mohler  
 
 
 
 
 
Gregory F. Zoeller 
Frankfort, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney General of Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Aaron J. Spolarich 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 12S02-1211-CR-630 
 
 
MICHAEL KUCHOLICK, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant (Defendant below), 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF INDIANA,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Plaintiff below). 
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Clinton Circuit Court 
No. 12C01-1003-FC-62 
The Honorable Linley Pearson, Judge 
  
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 12A02-1109-CR-907 
_________________________________ 
 
November 7, 2012 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
After David Lawler obtained a $2,500 civil judgment against Michael Kucholick’s 
girlfriend for unpaid rent, Kucholick drove by Lawler’s rural home and fired two shots into the 
home.   
 
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
Nov 07 2012, 10:26 am
 
 
 
Kucholick was charged with one count of criminal recklessness (a Class C felony), Ind. 
Code § 35-42-2-2, and one count of criminal mischief (a Class B misdemeanor), id. § 35-43-1-2.  
A jury found Kucholick guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced Kucholick to an 
enhanced term of seven years for criminal recklessness (consisting of four years executed in the 
Department of Correction and three years suspended to probation) and six months for criminal 
mischief, to be served concurrently.    
 
 
Kucholick appealed, arguing in part that the sentence imposed by the trial court was 
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.  See 
Appellate Rule 7(B).  Citing that rule, in a divided opinion the Court of Appeals concluded that 
Kucholick had met his burden of establishing that his sentence was inappropriate.  The majority 
held that Kucholick’s sentence should be revised to an aggregate sentence of four years, 
consisting of two years executed in a community corrections program and two years suspended 
to probation.  Kucholick v. State, No. 12A02-1109-CR-907, slip op. (Ind. Ct. App. June 8, 2012).   
 
 
“The principal role of appellate 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).  Appellate Rule 7(B) preserves for the trial court the 
central role in sentencing.  Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852, 856-57 (Ind. 2003). 
 
We agree that a modest sentence revision is warranted in this case.  In his separate 
opinion below, Judge Najam opined that the “nature of Kucholick’s offense closely corresponds 
 
 
to the elements of the crime,” that “Kucholick’s character [is] equivocal,” and therefore that an 
advisory sentence of four years, all executed, would be appropriate.  Kucholick, slip op. at 10.  
We agree.  As applicable here, criminal recklessness entails recklessly, knowingly, or 
intentionally performing an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another, by 
shooting a firearm into an inhabited dwelling.  Kucholick’s conduct corresponds to the elements 
of the offense.  As to Kucholick’s character, he was not truthful with law enforcement in this 
case, and his trial had to be delayed when Kucholick arrived for court with alcohol in his system; 
on the other hand, he is relatively young, has no prior felony convictions, and has a newborn 
child to support.  In short, the nature of Kucholick’s character is not particularly aggravating or 
mitigating on balance.   
 
We grant transfer of jurisdiction and direct revision of Kucholick’s aggregate sentence to 
an advisory term of four years, all executed.  The decision of the Court of Appeals is summarily 
affirmed in all other respects.  See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A).  
 
Rucker, David and Massa, JJ., concur. 
Dickson, C.J., dissents, believing that, while it is correct to grant transfer, the judgment of the 
trial court should be affirmed.