MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Apr 29 2016, 8:51 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
R. Patrick Magrath Gregory F. Zoeller
Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Madison, Indiana
Lyubov Gore
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ryan James Shelley, April 29, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
40A04-1510-CR-01709
v. Appeal from the Jennings Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jonathan W.
Appellee-Plaintiff Webster, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
40C01-1301-MR-001
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A04-1510-CR-01709 | April 29, 2016 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Ryan James Shelley (“Shelley”) appeals his fifty-eight year sentence for
murder,1 asking this court to find his sentence inappropriate and revise it to the
advisory sentence of fifty-five years.2 We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On December 27th, 2012, Shelley shook his girlfriend’s infant daughter, causing
her death. He was charged with murder,3 battery resulting in death,4 battery
resulting in serious bodily injury,5 aggravated battery,6 and neglect of a
dependent resulting in death.7 Shelley pled guilty to murder as part of a plea
agreement, providing that the court impose a sentence between fifty-five and
sixty years and dismiss his other charges. The trial court sentenced Shelley to
fifty-eight years imprisonment, ordered him to pay a hundred dollar fine, and
dismissed his remaining charges. (App.172-74.) Shelley now appeals.
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1). Indiana’s Criminal Code was substantially revised, effective July 1, 2014. At all
times, we refer to the version of the criminal code in effect at the time of Shelley’s offenses.
2
I.C. § 35-50-2-3.
3
I.C. § 35-42-1-1(1).
4
I.C. § 35-42-2-1(a)(5).
5
I.C. § 35-42-2-1(a)(4).
6
I.C. § 35-42-2-1.5(1).
7
I.C. § 35-46-1-4(b)(3).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A04-1510-CR-01709 | April 29, 2016 Page 2 of 4
Discussion and Decision
[3] The authority granted to this Court by Article 7, § 6 of the Indiana Constitution
permitting independent appellate review and revision of criminal sentences was
implemented by the Indiana Supreme Court through 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.” Ind. Appellate
Rule 7(B). The primary purpose in this type of review is to “leaven the
outliers” and focus on the aggregate sentence for the crime(s) committed.
Caldwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1125 (Ind. 2008).
[4] The nature of the offense gives us no reason to revise the sentence downward.
Shelley pled guilty to murder of a child for whom he was in a position as
caretaker.
[5] Turning to his character, Shelley has at least 14 criminal convictions (including
two felonies) and one formal juvenile adjudication. His convictions include
visiting a common nuisance, criminal mischief, battery, alcohol and drug
possession, resisting law enforcement, sexual misconduct with a minor, and
failure to register as a sex offender. While he expressed remorse, Shelley
benefited from his plea agreement under which he received less than the
maximum possible penalty.
Conclusion
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A04-1510-CR-01709 | April 29, 2016 Page 3 of 4
[6] In light of Shelley’s offense and his character, we conclude the sentence is not
inappropriate.
[7] Affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A04-1510-CR-01709 | April 29, 2016 Page 4 of 4