MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Sep 13 2016, 7:18 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Leanna Weissmann Gregory F. Zoeller
Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Larry D. Allen
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jeremy M. Hines, September 13, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
21A01-1603-CR-459
v. Appeal from the Fayette Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Matthew R. Cox,
Appellee-Plaintiff Special Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
21C01-1304-FC-325
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1603-CR-459 | September 13, 2016 Page 1 of 5
[1] Jeremy Hines appeals the sentence he received for Class C Felony Nonsupport
of a Dependent Child.1 He asks us to revise his sentence. Finding his sentence
not inappropriate, we affirm.
Facts
[2] Hines has three children with his ex-wife, Amy Hines, plus an additional
biological child and two additional stepchildren. As part of their 2007 divorce,
Hines was ordered to pay $40 of child support per week for the three children.
From February 16, 2011, through April 19, 2013, Hines did not pay child
support—over this period of time, Hines incurred an arrearage of $18,268.
[3] On April 24, 2013, the State charged Hines with Class C felony nonsupport of a
dependent child. On January 16, 2016, Hines pleaded guilty as charged. That
same day, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. Hines presented evidence
that he had difficulty finding permanent employment and earning steady
income. He testified that he lived with his fiancée, who worked a full-time job
at a convenience store while he watched her children at home. He also
informed the trial court that his fiancée would be able to help him make child
support payments until he found a job. The trial court took Hines’s sentencing
under advisement.
1
Ind. Code § 35-46-1-5(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1603-CR-459 | September 13, 2016 Page 2 of 5
[4] Before the trial court issued its sentencing order, Hines was arrested for
allegedly battering his fiancée in the presence of a child and interfering with the
reporting of a crime. On February 12, 2016, the trial court held another
sentencing hearing during which it took judicial notice of the new charges.
Hines’s pre-sentence investigation report (PSI) also disclosed a lengthy criminal
history. The trial court sentenced Hines to seven years with three years
executed and four years suspended to probation. Hines now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Hines has one argument on appeal, namely, that his sentence is inappropriate.
Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides, “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.” The principal role of such review is to
attempt to leaven the outliers, but not to achieve a perceived “correct” sentence.
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Sentencing is principally a
discretionary function in which the trial court’s judgment should receive
considerable deference. Id. at 1222. The defendant bears the burden of
showing us that his sentence is inappropriate. Kennedy v. State, 934 N.E.2d 779,
788 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
[6] We initially note that Hines pleaded guilty to a Class C felony, which at the
time carried a sentence between two and eight years, with an advisory sentence
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1603-CR-459 | September 13, 2016 Page 3 of 5
of four years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6. Thus, Hines’s sentence of seven years is
above the advisory sentence but below the maximum sentence.
[7] Turning to the nature of Hines’s offense, he failed to provide financial support
to three of his children as ordered by a court. Those three children were legally
entitled to over $18,000 of monetary support from Hines but, because of his
nonpayment, their needs will either go unmet or will be passed on to somebody
else. Although Hines testified that he has not been able to hold a job, he did
not provide any particular reason for his inconsistent employment. The longest
Hines has worked at one job was nine months, and that took place roughly
twenty years ago. We also note that Hines never requested a child support
modification due to any changed financial circumstances. Hines has not
carried his burden of showing us that the nature of his offense renders his seven-
year sentence inappropriate.
[8] Turning to Hines’s character, we find a man with a lengthy criminal history.
Hines has four felony convictions and six misdemeanor convictions. Among
his convictions are two prior convictions for nonsupport of his dependent
children, showing that nonsupport is a persistent character flaw. Even worse,
shortly after testifying that his fiancée—the biological mother of one of his
children and the sole income-earner in the household—could help him pay his
child support arrearage, he was arrested for battering her in the presence of
children. This is not the action of a man who intends to do whatever he can to
provide for his children. We are not persuaded to revise his sentence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1603-CR-459 | September 13, 2016 Page 4 of 5
[9] Finally, our Supreme Court has instructed us to focus not only on the aggregate
length of a sentence, but also consider “whether a portion of the sentence is
ordered suspended or otherwise crafted using any of the variety of sentencing
tools available to the trial judge.” Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025
(Ind. 2010). One of those tools is probation. Id. We note that, although Hines
received an aggregate sentence of seven years, the executed portion of three
years is actually below the advisory sentence of four years. In light of the
nature of Hines’s offense and his character, Hines’s mostly suspended sentence
is not inappropriate.
[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Najam, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1603-CR-459 | September 13, 2016 Page 5 of 5