Mouhamadou M. Sow v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 32A05-1707-CR-1692

In April 2016 Sow drove westbound, crossed the double yellow line, and collided head-on with Shoultz’s car; a 13‑year‑old passenger (Brooke) lost two permanent front teeth and suffered ongoing trauma; Shoultz sustained bruising and leg injuries.
After the crash Sow fled the scene and attempted to hide from police; officers later found marijuana on him, beer cans in his car, slurred speech, and a BAC of 0.148.
The State charged Sow with multiple counts including Level 3 OVWI causing serious bodily injury and leaving the scene; charges were later amended to add counts for drug‑related operating offenses and marijuana possession.
Sow pled guilty to one Level 3 OVWI causing serious bodily injury and leaving the scene and two Level 6 OVWI causing serious bodily injury; other counts were dismissed under a plea agreement limiting the Level 3 cap to 9 years and Level 6 caps to 2½ years each, concurrent.
At sentencing the court found aggravators (severe victim injuries, pending pre‑trial diversion, recent criminal history) and mitigators (generally law‑abiding life, likely to respond to supervision, remorse); court noted Sow’s likely deportation but declined to treat it as a mitigating factor.
The trial court imposed concurrent sentences totaling four years executed (4 years for the Level 3, 2½ years concurrent for each Level 6), less than the plea advisory cap; Sow appealed, challenging omission of deportation as a mitigator and claiming his sentence was inappropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Sow)	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by not finding inevitable deportation as a mitigating factor	Court need not treat deportation as mitigating; sentencing discretion permits rejecting proposed mitigators	Deportation will occur and should mitigate sentence	No abuse of discretion; court may decline to find deportation mitigating
Whether aggregate 4‑year executed sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B)	Sentence within statutory range, below advisory, and reflects aggravators; not inappropriate	Sentence is excessive given treatment efforts, remorse, and guilty plea	Sentence not inappropriate; affirmed

Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for reviewing sentencing discretion and sentencing‑statement errors)
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (burden on defendant to show sentence inappropriate under App. R. 7(B))
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (purpose and limits of App. R. 7(B) review)
Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 2012) (clarifying App. R. 7(B) standard: not to craft a ‘correct’ sentence)
Henderson v. State, 769 N.E.2d 172 (Ind. 2002) (trial court’s discretion to find mitigating factors)
Fugate v. State, 608 N.E.2d 1370 (Ind. 1993) (no requirement that court find offered mitigators)
Sherwood v. State, 749 N.E.2d 36 (Ind. 2001) (court need not explain why it rejected a mitigating factor)
Mendoza v. State, 737 N.E.2d 784 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (declining to treat deportation as a required mitigating factor)
Hunter v. State, 72 N.E.3d 928 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (trial court not obligated to accept defendant’s characterization or weight of a proposed mitigator)