Bailey, J.
On March 19, 2014, Jackson pled guilty to Dealing in a Schedule II Controlled Substance. Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, Jackson was to participate in the Howard County Drug Court program. Sentencing was deferred pending completion of the program. On March 11, 2015, the State filed a notice of intent to terminate Jackson’s participation in the drug court program, alleging that Jackson had admitted to smoking a compound called Spice and driving another drug court participant to purchase Spice.
On April 8, 2015, Jackson appeared for sentencing on the Class B felony conviction. The probation department recommended a sentence of ten years, with at least six years to be executed in the Indiana Department of Correction. Jackson agreed with the ten-year recommendation but requested a partial suspension. Jackson received a maximum sentence of twenty years, and this appeal ensued.
….
… So long as a sentence is within the statutory range, it is subject to review only for an abuse of discretion. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). …
… A trial court can abuse its sentencing discretion by: (1) issuing an inadequate sentencing statement; … or, (4) by finding factors that are improper as a matter of law. Id.
Here, the trial court expressed its reasons for the sentence imposed:
Mr. Jackson did make great strides in the Drug Court Program. The problem is that while he made strides in accomplishing some things he was forced to undertake and accomplish, he apparently made no progress whatsoever in the matter of criminal thinking, yet he was an active participant in helping other Drug Court participants evade detection for repeated drug use. So we have a situation where his criminal thinking not only harmed him but it directly participated in greater harm to other people. I think that’s an aggravating factor. I think his prior criminal history is an aggravating factor. I find no mitigating factors. I think, therefore, that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors and justify an enhanced sentence.
[Record citation omitted.] As such, the trial court acknowledged Jackson’s criminal history – comprised of a felony conviction and two misdemeanor convictions – and otherwise focused exclusively on Jackson’s conduct since his admission to the drug court program. However, the trial court was charged with imposing an initial sentence for the crime to which Jackson pled guilty. …
Although a sentencing court has options vis-á-vis the execution of a sentence, including such things as community placements, work release, home detention, drug court participation and the like, [footnote omitted] the trial court does not have the option of selecting a sentence based solely on the defendant’s conduct apart from the circumstances of the crime. Because the trial court did not issue an adequate sentencing statement, it abused its sentencing discretion. Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 490.
….
We reverse the twenty-year sentence and remand with instructions to the trial court to sentence Jackson for the offense to which he pled guilty, accompanied by a sentencing statement that is adequate to facilitate appellate review.
Reversed and remanded.
Baker, J., and Mathias, J., concur