MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Apr 13 2016, 9:06 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Alan L. Whitted Gregory F. Zoeller
Alex R. Whitted Attorney General of Indiana
Whitted Law, LLC. Jesse R. Drum
Columbus, Indiana Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Christopher D. Manley, April 13, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
03A01-1510-CR-1833
v. Appeal from the Bartholomew
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kathleen T.
Appellee-Plaintiff Coriden, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
03D02-1410-CM-4602
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1510-CR-01833 | April 13, 2016 Page 1 of 5
[1] Christopher D. Manley appeals his one-year sentence for class A misdemeanor
criminal conversion, arguing that it is inappropriate. We conclude that he has
waived his arguments, and therefore affirm.
[2] Manley temporarily lived with Kathryn Blackburn in Hope. After he moved
out, Blackburn could not find her checkbook. A couple of weeks later, she
received a notice that someone had attempted to cash one of her checks at a
MainSource Bank in Indianapolis. The check was made out to Manley for $75.
Blackburn said that she did not sign the check, did not recognize the
handwriting on the check, and did not authorize a check to be written to
Manley.
[3] In October 2014, the State charged Manley with class A misdemeanor check
fraud and class A misdemeanor criminal conversion. At a bench trial, the court
found Manley not guilty of check fraud but guilty of criminal conversion. In
October 2015, the trial court sentenced Manley to one year in the Bartholomew
County Jail to be served upon completion of the sentence he was currently
serving.
[4] Manley asserts that his sentence is inappropriate pursuant to Indiana Appellate
Rule 7(B), which states, “The Court 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.” Manley has the burden to show that his sentence is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1510-CR-01833 | April 13, 2016 Page 2 of 5
inappropriate. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on
reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218.
[5] First, Manley contends that the trial court failed to issue a sentencing statement
explaining why his sentence was to be served consecutive to his current term of
incarceration. This is not an Appellate Rule 7(B) claim. Manley’s argument
should have been presented in the context of our abuse of discretion review of a
sentence. See id. at 490-91 (stating that trial court may abuse its discretion by
not entering sentencing statement); King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 267 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2008) (“[A]n inappropriate sentence analysis does not involve an
argument that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the
defendant.”). Because Manley has failed to cogently argue that the trial court
abused its discretion, his argument is waived. See Ind. Appellate Rule
46(A)(8)(a) (“The argument must contain the contentions of the appellant on
the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning.”); Keller v. State, 987
N.E.2d 1099, 1121 n.11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (Keller’s “failure to make a cogent
argument regarding whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing
him results in waiver of that issue.”), trans. denied. Moreover, trial courts are
not required to enter sentencing statements for misdemeanor sentences.
Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 490 (“Indiana trial courts are required to enter
sentencing statements whenever imposing sentence for a felony offense.”);
Morris v. State, 985 N.E.2d 364, 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (“[I]t is clear that
abuse of discretion review of a sentence, which concerns a trial court’s duty to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1510-CR-01833 | April 13, 2016 Page 3 of 5
issue a sentencing statement along with its findings of aggravators and
mitigators, has no place in reviewing a misdemeanor sentence.”), trans. denied.
[6] Second, Manley argues that the nature of his offense does not warrant a
maximum, consecutive sentence. 1 Manley completely fails to consider how his
character impacts the inappropriateness of his sentence. Manley “bears the
burden of showing [that] both prongs of the inquiry favor revision of [his]
sentence.” Anderson v. State, 989 N.E.2d 823, 827 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans.
denied. Because Manley does not address his character, his argument is waived.
Id.
[7] Waiver notwithstanding, Manley’s argument is unavailing. As for the nature of
the offense, Manley stole a checkbook from a woman he had been living with
and attempted to use one of the checks to unlawfully obtain $75 from her. As
for his character, Manley has not been a law-abiding citizen. He has
convictions for class B felony criminal deviate conduct, carrying a handgun
without a license, failing to register as a sex offender (two), and driving while
suspended (two). Given the nature of the offense and his character, Manley
fails to persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate.
1
A person who commits a class A misdemeanor may be imprisoned to a fixed term of not more than one
year. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1510-CR-01833 | April 13, 2016 Page 4 of 5
[8] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1510-CR-01833 | April 13, 2016 Page 5 of 5