Background

• On September 27, 2015, Indiana State Police stopped and arrested Paul Michael Kage, Jr. after observing him drive; officers knew he was a habitual traffic violator and that his license had been forfeited for life.
• Kage was charged with Level 5 felony operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life and was alleged to be a habitual offender based on multiple prior felonies.
• A jury convicted Kage of the Level 5 felony and the habitual-offender allegation in September 2016.
• At sentencing, the trial court found Kage's extensive criminal history (numerous prior felonies and misdemeanors, including prior driving and intoxication offenses and multiple probation revocations) to be an aggravator and found no mitigating factors.
• The court imposed six years executed for the Level 5 felony (the statutory maximum) plus a two-year habitual-offender enhancement, for an aggregate eight-year executed sentence.
• Kage appealed, arguing his aggregate eight-year sentence was inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 2012) (appellate review asks whether a sentence is inappropriate, not whether it is appropriate)
• Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (sentencing is discretionary and appellate courts should give considerable deference to trial courts)
• Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111 (Ind. 2015) (describing when a defendant's character and offense can overcome deference to the trial court)
• Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)
• Pierce v. State, 949 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. 2011) (advisory sentence is the legislature's starting point for appropriateness review)
• Anglemyer v. State, 896 N.E.2d 494 (Ind. 2008) (standards for appellate review of sentencing issues)