Background

• Peters pleaded guilty to Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine pursuant to a plea agreement that capped his sentence at 15 years; remaining counts were dismissed.
• At sentencing the trial court imposed 15 years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC).
• Peters requested a trial-court recommendation that his sentence be served in DOC’s Purposeful Incarceration (P.I.) program so the court could later modify his sentence upon successful completion.
• The State opposed P.I., arguing the program was not intended for drug dealers; Peters had multiple prior significant drug convictions and related arrests.
• The trial court declined to recommend P.I., explaining it would not preempt a future judge’s discretion and citing Peters’s criminal history; the court encouraged available DOC treatment programs.
• Peters appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by not recommending P.I.; the court of appeals reviewed under Appellate Rule 7(B) and affirmed.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (distinguishes abuse-of-discretion from Appellate Rule 7(B) review of sentence placement)
• Biddinger v. State, 868 N.E.2d 407 (Ind. 2007) (location of service is proper subject for Appellate Rule 7(B) review)
• Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (practical deference to trial courts on feasibility of alternative placements)
• Marley v. State, 17 N.E.3d 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (describing DOC’s Purposeful Incarceration program)
• Rose v. State, 36 N.E.3d 1055 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (clarifies standard for inappropriateness review under Appellate Rule 7(B))
• Davis v. State, 835 N.E.2d 1102 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (failure to present cogent argument or authority waives appellate issue)