Goff, J.
Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) permits reviewing courts to revise a criminal sentence that is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” The defendant in this case received an aggregate sentence of more than eight years for ten misdemeanors he committed by sending letters from prison to his former partner, while serving time after a domestic battery and in violation of a no-contact order. Generally, we encourage Indiana trial courts to use the full range of rehabilitation options when sentencing defendants for misdemeanors and low-level felonies. However, we defer to a trial court’s decision that a lengthy sentence of incarceration for such offenses is necessary to protect victims and the community from an offender with a history of violence. Such deference is due here and, accordingly, we affirm the sentence.
…
Article Seven, Section Four of the Indiana Constitution grants this Court the power “to review and revise the sentence imposed” in all criminal appeals. This authority, as implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), allows an appellate court, “after due consideration of the trial court’s decision,” to find “that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.”
…
This opinion proceeds in three stages. First, we set out the broad policy context of sentence review, explaining the range of options trial courts have for sentencing a misdemeanor or low-level felony offender. Second, we clarify that defendants may argue that their sentences are inappropriate based on either the nature of their offenses or their character alone. Finally, we evaluate Lane’s sentence and decline to find it inappropriate, considering his violent criminal history and the risk he poses of perpetuating the cycle of domestic abuse against A.N.
Trial courts have a broad range of options for sentencing low-level offenders in light of the danger they may pose to the community.
We begin Part I by summarizing the recent reforms to Indiana’s criminal-justice system. For sentence-review purposes, we draw two principal conclusions from these reforms: First, sentencing courts should consider the full range of available options, including community-based rehabilitation programs, for defendants who commit low-level offenses but pose little continuing danger to others. Second, to ensure public safety, courts should consider extended jail sentences for low-level offenders with a history of violence who pose a continuing threat to others. Consequently, we will defer to a trial court’s considered assessment that a person is too dangerous to receive anything but a lengthy executed sentence.
…
One of the most important tasks for a trial judge is to determine which low-level offenders are not good candidates for community corrections or problem-solving courts. Our standard of review offers deference to a trial court’s considered decision on this score, as on all sentencing matters. Of course, our criminal code does not require a trial judge to use the same degree of formality in imposing a penalty for a misdemeanor as for a felony. See I.C. § 35-38-1-1.3 (2014) (requiring courts to issue statements only in felony cases when explaining any deviation from the advisory sentence). Still, it is important for a reviewing court to consider all the facts that confronted the sentencing judge. After all, the General Assembly intends trial judges to enjoy “maximum discretion to impose sentences based on a consideration of all the circumstances related to the offense.” I.C. § 35-32-1-1(7). When determining whether a misdemeanant’s lengthy sentence of imprisonment may be inappropriate, we find it helpful when trial courts, as here, explain their sentencing considerations in some detail on the record.
Given the context and general principles described above, we can properly frame the issue that lay before the trial judge in this case: How does a judge craft an appropriate sentence when a repeat misdemeanor offender has been undeterred by DOC placement, has demonstrated unwillingness to comply with a no-contact order, has threatened before to kill the victim and her family, and has a history of violent offenses? In such a case, it might well be appropriate to craft a sentence that incapacitates the offender from harming others for as long as possible. And it would behoove us to defer to a trial court’s sound discretion in imposing such a sentence on a dangerous, violent offender.
A defendant may seek to show that their sentence is inappropriate in light of either the nature of their offense or their character.
…
In Connor v. State, the Court of Appeals explained that the two prongs of Appellate Rule 7(B)—the nature of the offense and the character of the offender—are “separate inquiries to ultimately be balanced in determining whether a sentence is inappropriate.” 58 N.E.3d 215, 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Reviewing courts “must consider” both factors, but the defendant need not “necessarily prove” that the sentence is inappropriate on both counts. Id. at 219. Revision may be warranted “where only one of the prongs weighs heavily in favor” of the defendant. Id. By contrast, the panel in Davis v. State held that both “conditions” must be satisfied. 173 N.E.3d 700, 706 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021).
We adopt the Connor court’s understanding as a faithful expression of the flexibility of our 7(B) case-law.
…
As the Connor court appreciated, “7(B) review is a holistic approach.” 58 N.E.3d at 219. We assess a sentence in light of the whole picture before us. Allowing a strong showing on one prong to outweigh a weak showing on the other promotes the ideal of “similar sentences” for “perpetrators committing the same acts who have the same backgrounds.” See Serino, 798 N.E.2d at 854. We reiterate, however, that, to the extent the evidence on one prong militates against relief, a claim based on the other prong must be all the stronger to justify relief. See Connor, 58 N.E.3d at 220.
The sentence here was not inappropriate.
The principles announced above inform our evaluation of Lane’s 3,000- day sentence, which we ultimately affirm. In short, Lane’s crimes and character indicate that he poses a continuing danger of restarting a cycle of physical and emotional abuse towards A.N. We defer to the trial court’s decision that a lengthy term of imprisonment was warranted for the safety of A.N. and the community.
…
Admittedly, Lane’s sentence does not follow these principles— although we note that Lane was neither convicted for every letter he sent nor sentenced to the maximum available on each conviction. At any rate, we decline to adopt hard-and-fast directives under Rule 7(B) for sentences on multiple offenses. As we have explained, the essence of today’s criminal-justice system in Indiana is to distinguish dangerous, violent offenders from the rest and to provide for sentences that reflect all the pertinent circumstances. We assess an aggregate sentence against the myriad factors appearing in the individual case. See Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224.
Here, Lane committed repeated, similar offenses. But that is not all. The offenses reflected his longstanding pattern of domestic abuse and he failed to stop committing crimes against the same victim despite imprisonment. Sometimes, as in this case, there is good justification for a sentence that looks at first glance like an outlier.
The trial court carefully considered all the circumstances and determined that Lane’s crimes and character warranted a lengthy aggregate sentence for his repeated misdemeanors. The sentence is consistent with the aim of Indiana’s criminal-justice system to separate dangerous, violent offenders from the community to protect public safety.
We defer to the trial court’s assessment of the options before it in this case and, accordingly, affirm the sentence.
Rush, C.J., and Slaughter, J., concur.
Molter, J., dissents with separate opinion in which Massa, J., joins.
Molter, J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the Court’s decision to decline any Appellate Rule 7(B) relief. Leading up to Part III, the Court’s opinion eloquently explains Rule 7(B)’s constitutional grounding, history, and guiding principles. And Part III helpfully identifies guideposts for misdemeanor sentencing: (1) related and similar misdemeanor offenses committed close in time generally warrant concurrent rather than consecutive sentences, and (2) separate misdemeanor offenses generally should not be punished far in excess of the appropriate sentence for the most serious individual offense. I agree with much of that discussion, but on balance, the considerations the Court outlines compel revising the sentence here.
To be sure, Lane’s character does not warrant any revision, but the nature of his offense does. As Part III acknowledges, “a letter is not the most intrusive way of violating a no‐contact order,” “Lane’s letters were not openly threatening and often discussed run‐of‐the‐mill family matters,” and “such a long aggregate sentence for misdemeanors as Lane’s is uncommon.” Ante, at 13, 16.
…
Nevertheless, the Court concludes no relief is warranted because the trial court’s sentence was a carefully considered one, and Lane’s letters present the risks reflected in the Power and Control Wheel. Those are certainly compelling reasons not to reduce Lane’s sentence too far. But the nature of the offense still warrants appellate relief to “leaven” the outlier sentence. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008).
Mindful that for sentencing there is no one “right answer in any given case,” I would revise Lane’s sentence for sending the nonthreatening letters at least to the extent the sentence would not exceed the two‐and‐a‐ half‐year maximum sentence for battery resulting in moderate bodily injury. State v. Stidham, 157 N.E.3d 1185, 1197 (Ind. 2020) (quotations omitted).
Massa, J., joins.