Charles N. Peete v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 20A03-1704-CR-807

On Oct. 20, 2016, neighbor Cynthia Peters observed a man enter the Lese residence, then exit minutes later carrying a bag; she called dispatch.
Police stopped a two-tone Chevy Avalanche leaving the area; the driver, identified as Charles N. Peete, matched Peters’ description.
Officers recovered jewelry and bags from the vehicle; the Lese victim identified the items as hers.
Peete was charged with Level 4 burglary and an habitual offender enhancement; a jury convicted him of burglary and he pled guilty to the habitual offender allegation.
The trial court sentenced Peete to 12 years (maximum for a Level 4 felony) plus a 15-year enhancement for habitual offender status, for a total executed term of 27 years.
Peete appealed, arguing his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Peete’s sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B)	State: sentence within statutory limits and justified by Peete’s criminal history and offense circumstances	Peete: sentence excessive given the burglary’s non-violent facts and quick recovery of stolen items	Affirmed — sentence not inappropriate in light of offense and offender character

King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (appellate review not whether another sentence is better but whether imposed sentence is inappropriate)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate review’s role is to "leaven the outliers")
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)
Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. 2008) (defendant must show inappropriateness as to both nature of offense and character)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (advisory sentence as starting point for appellate appropriateness review)