These opinions are not precedents and cannot be cited or relied upon unless used when establishing res judicata or collateral estoppel or in actions between the same party. Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure 65(D).
Appeal from the Lake Superior Court; The Honorable Salvador Vasquez, Judge; 45G01-1310-FC-120.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Kristin A. Mulholland, Crown Point, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana; Graham T. Youngs, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana.
May, Judge. Barnes, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
[¶1] Everett Harry Koonce, Jr., appeals his sentence of seven and a half years for Class C felony attempted battery by means of a deadly weapon. As the sentence was not inappropriate, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[¶2] On October 3, 2013, Koonce was arrested after he bumped a sixteen-year-old girl with his car and then chased her with his car, nearly running over her when she tripped and fell. Koonce agreed to plead guilty and the judge imposed a sentence six months short of the maximum eight-year sentence allowed for a Class C felony.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[¶3] Koonce argues his sentence is inappropriate because it imposes an undue hardship on his family, who needs his assistance caring for his father so that his mother can maintain employment.
We may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Although appellate review of sentences must give due consideration to the trial court's sentence because of the special expertise of the trial bench in making sentencing decisions, Appellate Rule 7(B) is an authorization to revise sentences when certain broad conditions are satisfied. Whether we regard a sentence as appropriate at the end of the day turns on our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case. In addition to the due consideration we are required to give to the trial court's sentencing decision, we understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.
Couch v. State, 977 N.E.2d 1013, 1017 (Ind.Ct.App. 2012) (citations and quotation marks omitted), reh'g denied, trans. denied. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating his sentence is inappropriate. Amalfitano v. ...