Diego Armando Pacheco Manzo v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 79A02-1607-CR-1703

In 2006 Pacheco was stopped in Lafayette after K-9 alerted; officers found two packages of cocaine (about two ounces total) intended for delivery. He was charged with multiple drug offenses.
Under a written plea agreement Pacheco pled guilty to one count of Class A felony dealing in cocaine with a sentencing cap of 25 years; other charges were dismissed. The trial court sentenced him to 25 years executed in 2007.
Pacheco did not timely appeal; he has limited education, limited English, and was not clearly informed of appellate rights at sentencing or during the plea colloquy.
Pacheco repeatedly wrote to the trial court seeking relief and eventually filed a pro se postconviction petition in 2014; counsel later filed a petition for permission to file a belated notice of appeal under Post-Conviction Rule 2(1).
The trial court granted permission to file a belated notice of appeal; the State sought dismissal arguing the trial court abused its discretion and failed to make findings.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of permission for a belated appeal and upheld the 25-year sentence as not inappropriate under App. R. 7(B).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting permission to file a belated notice of appeal under Post-Conviction Rule 2(1)	The State: the trial court erred and failed to issue requisite findings, so the belated appeal should be dismissed	Pacheco: he was without fault in the delay (was not informed of appellate rights; limited English/education) and was diligent in seeking relief	Court: No abuse of discretion; Pacheco was not at fault, was diligent, and dismissal is not warranted
Whether Pacheco’s 25-year sentence is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B)	Pacheco: sentence is excessive given his lack of prior convictions and that his conduct did not exceed elements of the offense	State: amount of cocaine and plea bargain benefit justify sentence; sentence is below advisory and far below potential exposure	Court: Sentence is not inappropriate; nature of offense and offender’s character support affirmation

Moshenek v. State, 868 N.E.2d 419 (Ind. 2007) (standard for granting permission to file a belated appeal and factors for fault/diligence)
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate deference to trial court sentencing; review’s role to address outliers)
Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653 (Ind. 2014) (advisory sentence as legislative starting point)
Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 2010) (consideration of all penal consequences in sentencing review)
Creech v. State, 887 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. 2008) (defendant may waive appellate review of sentence as part of plea agreement)
Amphonephong v. State, 32 N.E.3d 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (review standard when trial court rules on paper record without hearing)