MATHIAS, Judge.
Roy Bessler ("Bessler") was convicted after a jury trial in Dearborn Superior Court of two counts of Class B felony dealing in cocaine and two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine. Bessler was sentenced to concurrent sentences for the four counts with an executed sentence of thirty years in the Indiana Department of Correction. Bessler appeals and argues that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of his subsequent bad acts to show his predisposition to engage in the conduct and that his executed sentence of thirty years is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
We affirm.
On January 5, 2011, a Confidential Informant ("the CI")
On January 14, 2011, the CI contacted Detective McHenry and stated that Bessler had asked her if she had any friends that wanted cocaine. Undercover officer, Detective Nicholas Beetz ("Detective Beetz") met with Bessler and the CI that evening to perform a controlled buy of cocaine. They met in a parking lot, and Detective Beetz got into Bessler's truck. While Detective Beetz, the CI, and Bessler were in the truck, Bessler retrieved cocaine
On January 25, 2011, Bessler contacted Detective Beetz, and when Detective Beetz returned his call, Bessler agreed to sell him more cocaine. Detective Beetz purchased over three grams of cocaine
On February 24, 2011, detectives conducted additional surveillance and saw Bessler meet with a suspected supplier of marijuana and return to his apartment with a large duffel bag. Bessler also met with Detective Beetz that day, and Bessler discussed whether Detective Beetz might be interested in transporting marijuana for him. After obtaining a search warrant for Bessler's apartment and truck, officers seized twenty pounds of marijuana. Bessler was then arrested and charged, in a separate cause of action from the current case, with Class C felony possession with intent to deliver marijuana.
On May 27, 2011, Bessler was charged with the crimes at issue in this appeal, two counts of Class B felony dealing in cocaine and two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine over three grams all based on the earlier cocaine sales to Officer Beetz. On November 22, 2011, Bessler filed a Motion on the Defense of Entrapment.
At trial, which began on December 12, 2011, Bessler argued the defense of entrapment. The State raised Bessler's subsequent possession of marijuana as evidence that he had a predisposition to engage in dealing cocaine. After a four-day jury trial, the jury found Bessler guilty on all counts. On January 6, 2012, Bessler was sentenced to twenty years on both Count I and Count II and to thirty years on both Count III and Count IV, all to be served concurrently in the Indiana Department of Correction. Bessler now appeals.
Bessler argues that the trial court erred by allowing the State to admit evidence of Bessler's subsequent bad acts to show his predisposition to engage in dealing cocaine and that the trial court erred by failing to give a limiting instruction regarding the marijuana evidence. At trial, Bessler raised entrapment
To rebut Bessler's defense, the State raised Bessler's prior
We do not reach the issue today of whether Bessler's subsequent acts were admissible to show his predisposition to deal cocaine,
Factors that "indicate a predisposition to sell drugs include: knowledge of drug prices; knowledge of drug sources and suppliers; use and understanding of terminology of the drug market; solicitation of future drug sales; and multiple sales to undercover officers."
Bessler also argues that the trial court erred by failing to give a limiting instruction that the marijuana evidence was only to be considered for whether Bessler was predisposed to commit the crime of dealing in cocaine and not considered as evidence of Bessler's general propensity to deal illegal substances. At trial, Bessler did not tender a limiting instruction and did not object when the trial court failed to issue a limiting instruction. "Generally, a defendant who fails to object to the court's final instructions and fails to tender a competing set of instructions at trial waives a claim of error on appeal, unless the error identified rises to the level of fundamental error." Sanchez v. State, 675 N.E.2d 306, 308 (Ind. 1996). Bessler does not argue fundamental error on appeal, and since he did not tender limiting instructions or object when the trial court failed to issue limiting instructions, we hold that he did not preserve the issue for appeal.
Bessler claims that the sentence of thirty years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction imposed by the trial court is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and of his character. Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), 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 we may review and revise a sentence, "[t]he principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived `correct' result in each case."
When we review the appropriateness of a sentence, we consider "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."
Furthermore, we focus on the aggregate sentence rather than the "`consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.'"
Bessler has prior criminal convictions for battery, domestic battery, domestic violence, and driving under the influence. Bessler also has a prior conviction for Class A felony dealing in cocaine over three grams, which is particularly relevant to this case since it involves the same offense for which he was convicted for in the present case. For all of these reasons, we conclude Bessler's sentence was not inappropriate.
The admission of Bessler's subsequent acts was harmless error, and his sentence was not inappropriate in light of his character and the nature of the offense.
Affirmed.
VAIDIK, J., and BARNES, J., concur