her “pee.” Transcript at 62. C.S. said that Surber did not touch her younger sister, K.S., because “she’s only four (4) and Daddy said you don’t do that until you’re old enough to start school like me.” Id. at 87. Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Surber has misdemeanor convictions for minor consumption, possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, battery, operating while intoxicated, and resisting law enforcement. Surber violated his probation in 1996 and twice in 2004. After due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we cannot say that the thirty-six-year sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. See, e.g., McCoy v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1259, 1264 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Surber’s
holding that the defendants sentence was reasonable when the district court considered the parties arguments and provided a reasoned basis for its choice of sentence holding that the defendants sentence for robbery was not inappropriate holding that a district courts rejection of an argument for an inappropriate reason was error holding that defendant was not deprived of any procedural rights or prejudiced by trial court hearing the evidence at defendants child molesting trial as evidence in the states petition to revoke defendants probation holding that the defendants fortyfiveyear sentence for molesting his stepdaughter was not inappropriate