Background

• On April 18, 2016, Scott K. Jordan gave a Walgreens pharmacist a note demanding methadone while indicating he had a gun; the pharmacist gave him a bottle containing 100 methadone pills.
• Jordan ingested some pills while leaving; police later found him nearby with the stolen bottle in his jacket and he admitted the robbery.
• The State charged Jordan with robbery, a Level 3 felony; he pleaded guilty on October 14, 2016 without a plea agreement.
• At sentencing, the trial court imposed a 16-year term on November 8, 2016; Jordan appealed claiming the sentence was inappropriate.
• The trial court observed lack of remorse (Jordan stated he was “indifferent”) and recounted an extensive criminal history, including multiple felony convictions, prior revoked probations, parole status at the time of this offense, a contemporaneous guilty plea to murder, and untreated substance abuse.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Roush v. State, 875 N.E.2d 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (recognizing appellate authority to independently review sentences under Rule 7(B))
• Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (appellant must show sentence inappropriate in light of nature and character)
• Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (assess trial court’s recognition of aggravators/mitigators as guide for appropriateness review)
• Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate deference to trial court sentencing and role to correct outliers)
• King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (standard: whether imposed sentence is inappropriate, not whether another would be more appropriate)
• Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111 (Ind. 2015) (deference to trial court stands unless defendant shows compelling mitigating evidence)
• Baumholser v. State, 62 N.E.3d 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (defendant must show inappropriateness as to both offense nature and character)
• Garcia v. State, 47 N.E.3d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (criminal history is a relevant factor in assessing offender’s character)