Miguel Garcia v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 79A04-1610-CR-2290

Miguel Garcia pleaded guilty to two Level 3 felony robberies (Nov. 1 and Nov. 5, 2014) and one criminal confinement count reduced to a Level 6 felony; other counts were dismissed under a plea agreement.
At sentencing the trial court found multiple aggravators and mitigators and imposed the advisory nine-year sentence on each Level 3 count, ordering those two sentences to run consecutively (aggregate 18 years, with two years suspended) and the Level 6 sentence concurrent.
On first appeal this Court held the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without stating reasons and remanded for the trial court to either make findings supporting consecutive terms or impose concurrent sentences.
On remand the trial court entered findings that the offenses were separate, occurred within a short period at different stores, and involved three victims, and reimposed the original aggregate 18-year sentence (16 executed, 2 suspended).
Garcia appealed again, arguing the sentence was inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Garcia’s aggregate 18-year sentence is inappropriate under Rule 7(B)	State: sentence is proper given two separate armed robberies, multiple victims, and supporting findings for consecutive terms	Garcia: sentence is inappropriate because he played a lesser role, did only what was necessary, and his character/record do not warrant aggregate advisory sentences	Court affirmed: sentence not inappropriate in light of offense nature and offender’s character

Marcum v. State, 725 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. 2000) (trial court must state reasons supporting consecutive sentences)
Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504 (Ind. 2007) (remand options: concurrent or consecutive with findings)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate review focuses on aggregate sentence)
Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (deference to trial court; appellate role to correct outliers)
Trainor v. State, 950 N.E.2d 352 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (Rule 7(B) implements independent appellate review of sentences)
Marley v. State, 17 N.E.3d 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (suspension of part of sentence is a factor in appropriateness review)
O'Connell v. State, 742 N.E.2d 943 (Ind. 2001) (multiple crimes or victims can justify consecutive sentences)
Myers v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1069 (Ind. 2015) (consecutive sentences not inappropriate where multiple victims)
Cotto v. State, 829 N.E.2d 520 (Ind. 2005) (extensive arrest history may reflect lack of deterrence)
Vermillion v. State, 978 N.E.2d 459 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (arrest record may be considered in assessing offender’s character)