Lisa M. Pace v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 72A04-1701-CR-212

In November 2009 Pace witnessed her then-boyfriend, Bobby Riley, strangling Paul Graupe to death; Pace cleaned blood, concealed evidence, and took money from Graupe’s body.
For three years Pace repeatedly lied to police about Graupe’s disappearance, at times implicating other men and diverting the investigation.
Pace was previously convicted of theft and was on probation when later arrested for new offenses (including shoplifting and possession of Oxycodone).
In 2013 the State charged Pace with multiple counts including assisting a criminal; additional possession and theft charges were filed in 2016.
On November 1, 2016 Pace pleaded guilty to violating probation (Cause 22), two counts of Class C felony assisting a criminal (Cause 6), one Level 6 felony possession (Cause 278), and one Class A misdemeanor theft (Cause 278).
The trial court imposed 270 days executed for the probation violation, concurrent four-year terms for the assisting counts, concurrent one-year terms for the Cause 278 counts, ordered the terms consecutive for an aggregate executed sentence of five years and 270 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Pace)	Held
Whether the aggregate sentence is inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)	Sentence is appropriate given offense severity and offender’s conduct	Sentence is inappropriate because Pace acted from fear/self-preservation, later assisted in locating the body, expressed remorse, and had turned her life around	Affirmed: sentence not inappropriate
Whether the nature of Pace’s assisting-a-criminal conduct mitigates culpability	The nature (concealment, multi-year deception) aggravates culpability	Conduct was limited to self-protection and did not exceed statutory bounds	Court finds nature aggravating: long deception harmed investigation and family
Whether Pace’s character supports a reduced sentence	Criminal history, probation violation, multiple charges support sentencing	Post-offense remorse and life changes warrant leniency	Court finds character indifferent or negative due to repeated deception and recidivism
Whether advisory sentences were exceeded or abused	Trial court imposed advisory terms and ran them consecutively within statutory limits	Sentence argued excessive relative to conduct	Court held sentence within statutory range and not inappropriate under 7(B)

Corbally v. State, 5 N.E.3d 463 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (discussing appellate review for inappropriateness under Rule 7(B))
King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (clarifying that 7(B) review asks whether imposed sentence is inappropriate, not whether a different sentence would be better)
Chappell v. State, 966 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (placing burden on appellant to show sentence is inappropriate)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (trial court discretion in sentencing should receive considerable deference; appellate role is to "leaven the outliers")
Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (advisory sentence is the starting point in 7(B) review)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (framework for sentencing review and consideration of advisory sentence)