Eric L. Moots v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 10A01-1706-CR-1279

Defendant Eric L. Moots pled guilty to one count of Level 4 felony burglary in exchange for dismissal of related charges; sentencing left to the trial court.
On Jan. 26, 2016, Moots forced entry into his half-brother’s home, ransacked it, damaged doors and a gun safe, and stole three firearms; he later admitted using one stolen gun in a bank robbery.
Moots had asked to be driven to the house earlier that day and returned later to kick in the basement door, reflecting planning and abuse of a position of trust.
The State initially charged additional offenses (including firearm theft and habitual offender enhancements), and a separate cause charged Level 3 robbery for the subsequent bank robbery.
Moots is 29 with an extensive adult criminal history (multiple felony and misdemeanor convictions, prior probation grants and revocations) and a significant juvenile history with numerous placements.
The trial court sentenced Moots to the maximum 12-year sentence for a Level 4 felony, with 3 years suspended to probation and an option to participate in a Purposeful Incarceration program for the last 2 years; Moots appealed under App. R. 7(B).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Moots’s 12-year sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B)	State: sentence is within statutory range and justified by offense and defendant’s record	Moots: advisory 6-year sentence would be more appropriate because no one was present or injured; mitigating circumstances exist	Court affirmed: sentence not inappropriate given premeditation, breach of trust, use of stolen gun in further crime, and extensive criminal history

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 to correct outliers)
Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 2010) (consider entire penal consequences, including suspended time and alternative programs)
Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (appellate review asks whether imposed sentence is inappropriate, not whether a different sentence might be better)
Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653 (Ind. 2014) (advisory sentence as legislative starting point)
Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (defendant’s criminal history relevant to character analysis)
King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (distinguishes inappropriate-sentence review from abuse-of-discretion claims)
Mendoza v. State, 869 N.E.2d 546 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (trial court sentencing errors harmless if sentence is not inappropriate)