Andrew B. Nichols v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 02A05-1611-CR-2756

On July 21, 2015, Andrew B. Nichols took a purse from Christy Wroblewski at a gas station, struggled with her, produced a CO2 pellet gun that looked and felt like a real handgun, and struck her repeatedly with it; she sustained bruising and pain.
Bystanders identified Nichols’ vehicle and police stopped him; Nichols discarded the pellet gun during the stop; parts of the gun were recovered at the struggle site.
Nichols was charged with attempted robbery (Level 3 felony) and battery (Level 5 felony); a jury convicted him of both counts.
The trial court sentenced Nichols to 14 years with 2 years suspended to probation on the attempted robbery and a concurrent 3-year term on the battery conviction. The court declined to find his long gap in criminal activity and claimed acceptance of responsibility as mitigators, and found his criminal history an aggravator.
Nichols appealed, arguing (1) the trial court abused its sentencing discretion and (2) his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in sentencing?	State: trial court properly exercised discretion, identified aggravator (criminal history), explained reasons.	Nichols: court should have found the lengthy gap in prior offenses and his alleged acceptance of responsibility as mitigators.	No abuse. Court reasonably declined to credit the gap (recent offenses and out on bond) and found Nichols did not truly accept responsibility.
2. Is Nichols’ sentence inappropriate under Rule 7(B)?	State: sentence appropriate given offense severity and Nichols’ character/criminal history.	Nichols: his character mitigates; sentence excessive. (He did not argue the nature of the offense.)	Waived for failure to address nature of the offense; on the merits, sentence not inappropriate given violent escalation, prior record, and conduct while on bond.

Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate deference to trial court sentencing decisions and purpose of Rule 7(B) review)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (requirements for sentencing statements and consideration of aggravators/mitigators)
Gross v. State, 22 N.E.3d 863 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
Sandleben v. State, 22 N.E.3d 782 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (no obligation to explain why a proposed mitigator lacks weight)
Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (Rule 7(B) requires showing both nature of offense and defendant's character)
Roush v. State, 875 N.E.2d 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (independent appellate review under Article 7 and Rule 7(B))
Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (affirming requirement to show inappropriateness as to both nature and character)
Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (trial court’s recognition of aggravators/mitigators guides Rule 7(B) review)
Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111 (Ind. 2015) (deference to trial court unless compelling positive evidence of lesser culpability or strong good-character traits)
Garcia v. State, 47 N.E.3d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (criminal history is relevant to defendant’s character in Rule 7(B) analysis)
King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (distinguishing inappropriate sentence from merely preferable alternative)