Case Information
*1 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLEE Peter D. Todd Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Elkhart, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Marjorie Lawyer-Smith Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana I N T H E
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Trevor J. Laughman, March 22, 2017 Court of Appeals Case No. Appellant-Defendant,
20A04-1608-CR-2003 v. Appeal from the Elkhart Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable George Biddlecome, Senior Judge Appellee-Plaintiff.
Trial Court Cause No. 20D01-1505-F6-481
Barnes, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Trevor Laughman appeals the two-and-one-half year sentence imposed for
possession of cocaine, a Level 6 felony. We affirm.
Issue Laughman raises one issue, which we restate as whether his sentence is
Facts On March 23, 2015, Elkhart Police Officer Dan Mayer was on patrol. Officer
Mayer saw a bicyclist, who was later identified as Laughman, traveling south in the northbound lanes of the street. Lauhman was “coming head on with traffic, ” and there was no bicycle lane available. Tr. p. 83. Officer Mayer initiated a traffic stop and learned Laughman had valid warrant from the Elkhart County Sheriff’s Department. Officer Mayer arrested La ughman, searched him, and discovered a small bag that contained a substance later identified as crack cocaine. The State charged Laughman with possession of cocaine, a Level 6 felony. In
June 2016, a jury found Laughman guilty of the charge, and on August 5, 2016, the trial court sentenced Laughman to two-and-one-half years in the Department of Correction. Laughman now appeals his sentence.
Analysis Laughman argues that his maximum, executed sentence is inappropriate and
should be revised. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) allows us to revise an appellant’s sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find th at sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and character of the offender. We must give the trial court’s decision due consideration because we “understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.” Rutherford v. State , 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to leaven the outliers . . . but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State , 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). An appellant bears the burden of persuading us her sentence is inappropriate. Id. (citing Childress v. State , 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006)). Regarding the nature of the offense, we acknowledge Laughman’s argument that the circumstances surrounding his possession of cocaine were benign compared to cases in which appellants have possessed the drug and simultaneously been involved in violent crimes. However, Laughman’s character — namely his lengthy criminal history — more than justifies his sentence. Laughman’s criminal history is comprised of nineteen misdemeanor
convictions and two felony convictions. Laughman’s prior convictions include driving offenses, alcohol-related offenses, drug convictions, robbery, and theft. Laughman has a history of both alcohol and drug addic tions and “has been *4 given at least three opportunities to address those addic tions” in the Department of Correction and in local programs. All of those efforts have failed, and Laughman has “refused to successfully address his addictions.” Tr. p. 155 . In light of Laughman’s character, Laughman’s sentence is not
Conclusion Laughman ’ s sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense
and his character. We affirm. Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Robb, J., concur.