Marcus T. Threatt, Jr., Appellant-Defendant,
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
from the Floyd Superior Court. The Honorable Susan L. Orth,
Judge. Trial Court Cause No. 22D01-1512-MR-2296
Attorney for Appellant Matthew J. McGovern Anderson, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General
of Indiana, Ellen H. Meilaender Supervising Deputy Attorney
General Indianapolis, Indiana
SHEPARD, SENIOR JUDGE
Appellant Marcus Threatt was sentenced to twenty years with
two and one-half years suspended upon his conviction of
robbery, a Level 2 felony. Concluding the sentence imposed by the
trial court was not inappropriate, we affirm.
and Procedural History
In December 2015, Threatt arranged that he and Keontez Malone
would purchase marijuana from Threatt's friend Charlie
Fischbach. Threatt and Malone planned to take the marijuana
without paying for it. When the three men met for the
transaction, Fischbach resisted and Malone shot him.
Threatt was charged with murder and dealing in marijuana, a Level
6 felony. In an open plea, he pleaded guilty to a
reduced charge of robbery as a Level 2 felony, and the State
agreed to dismiss the marijuana charge. The trial court
sentenced Threatt to twenty years with two and one-half years
suspended to probation. He now appeals.
Threatt presents one issue for our review: whether his
sentence is inappropriate.
Although a trial court may have acted within its lawful
discretion in imposing a sentence, article VII, sections 4
and 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorize independent
appellate review and revision of sentences. Indiana Appellate
Rule 7(B) provides that we may revise a sentence if, after
due consideration of the trial court's decision, we
determine that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the
nature of the offense and the character of the offender.
Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383 (Ind.Ct.App. 2014).
However, "we must and should exercise deference to a
trial court's sentencing decision, both because Rule 7(B)
requires us to give 'due consideration' to that
decision and because we understand and recognize the unique
perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing
decisions." Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d 858,
866 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007).
The principal role of appellate review under Rule 7(B) is to
attempt to leaven the outliers, not to achieve a perceived
"correct" result in each case. Garner v.
State, 7 N.E.3d 1012 (Ind.Ct.App. 2014). In other words,
the question under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another
sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question
is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v.
State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008). The defendant
bears the burden of persuading the appellate court that his
or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v.
State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006).
To assess such a claim, we look first to the statutory range
established for the class of the offense. Here, the offense
is a Level 2 felony, for which the advisory sentence is
seventeen and one-half years, with a minimum of ten and a
maximum of thirty years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5 (2014).
Although Threatt ...