Carl Hughes v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 49A02-1604-CR-925

In two separate causes (2545 and 22305), Hughes was charged with multiple theft- and fraud-related offenses after stealing a debit card/use and after being caught breaking into vehicles and stealing items while high on methamphetamine.
Hughes admitted drug use motivated the thefts and had a long history of property- and drug-related convictions dating to his juvenile years and continuing as an adult.
He entered drug-court diversion agreements in both cases: successful completion would result in dismissal; failure would result in conviction and standard sentencing.
Hughes failed to complete drug court; the trial court entered convictions and imposed an aggregate 910-day sentence in the 22305 case (maximum for Level 6 felonies was 2.5 years, and the court ran counts concurrently to arrive at 910 days).
Hughes appealed, arguing his 910-day aggregate sentence was inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hughes's 910-day sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B)	State argues sentence is appropriate given the crimes and Hughes’s record	Hughes argues sentence is inappropriate in light of his drug addiction and nature of offenses	Affirmed: sentence not inappropriate; trial court’s judgment stands

Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (discusses deference and burden in Rule 7(B) review)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (directs appellate focus on aggregate sentence under Rule 7(B))
Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 2010) (permits review of all penal consequences in Rule 7(B) review)
Bryant v. State, 841 N.E.2d 1154 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (criminal history significance varies with gravity and relation to current offense)
Wooley v. State, 716 N.E.2d 919 (Ind. 1999) (addresses weight of prior convictions in sentencing considerations)