Durwood Lee Elliott, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 71A04-1701-CR-95

Elliott was on probation for a recent conviction for invasion of privacy and ordered to have no contact with his wife, Mary.
Less than two weeks later (June 7, 2016), an intoxicated Elliott went to Mary’s home, banged on her door, demanded she open it, and threatened to “kill her.”
Mary called police; Elliott attempted to flee and resisted arrest, forcing officers to tase him.
The State charged Elliott with Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy (violating the no-contact order), Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct, and Class A misdemeanor intimidation; Elliott pleaded guilty to all three counts.
The trial court noted Elliott’s extensive criminal history (at least seven felonies and twenty-two misdemeanors) and that he committed the offense while on probation; it sentenced him to concurrent/ consecutive terms totaling an aggregate two-year sentence.
Elliott appealed, arguing his two-year aggregate sentence was inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Elliott’s aggregate two-year sentence is inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)	State: Sentence is appropriate given offense severity and defendant’s record	Elliott: Sentence is inappropriate given nature of offenses and his character (including alcohol-related issues)	Affirmed — sentence not inappropriate after review of offense and character

Brown v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. 2014) (recognizes appellate authority to independently review sentences)
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) (factors guiding appropriateness review: culpability, severity, harm, and other case-specific considerations)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (clarifies review limits on trial court’s weighing of aggravators/mitigators)