FILED
Jun 14 2018, 6:43 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Alexander L. Hoover Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Nappanee, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Henry A. Flores, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Christopher J. Miller, June 14, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-85
v. Appeal from the Marshall Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Robert O. Bowen,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
50D01-1607-F3-24
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Following a bench trial, Christopher Miller was convicted of Level 5 felony
domestic battery resulting in serious bodily injury and sentenced to six years in
prison. On appeal, Miller argues that his sentence is inappropriate because the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-85 | June 14, 2018 Page 1 of 5
trial court did not recommend purposeful incarceration at the Indiana
Department of Correction (DOC).
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] On July 21, 2017, Christopher Miller resided with his 72-year-old father,
Lawrence, in Marshall County, Indiana. Miller arrived home around 6:30
p.m., and Lawrence observed that Miller was intoxicated. Miller fixed
something to eat and then went downstairs. He eventually ventured back
upstairs and asked his father where the keys to his father’s vehicle were located.
When Lawrence replied he did not know, Miller became visibly unsettled.
Miller then went back downstairs to look for the keys.
[4] Shortly thereafter, while Lawrence was standing at the kitchen sink, Miller
came up behind Lawrence and threw him to the ground. The next thing
Lawrence remembered was being on the ground with Miller on top of him,
“choking” him. Transcript Vol. II at 23. Miller asked him, “do you want to live
or die.” Id. at 23. While Lawrence did not lose consciousness, he did have
difficulty breathing. After the altercation, Lawrence left the house to seek help.
[5] Officers Jordan Rans and Travis Oneal of the Plymouth Police Department
were dispatched. When the officers encountered Lawrence, Officer Rans
observed that Lawrence had a laceration above his right eye and that the eye
was swollen shut. He also had a bruised and swollen right hand, as well as a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-85 | June 14, 2018 Page 2 of 5
ripped and bloodied shirt. Lawrence advised the officers he had been attacked
and strangled by Miller. As a result of the battery, Lawrence suffered a fracture
to his orbital socket that required surgery, a fracture to his hand, a laceration
above his eye that required stiches, and contusions on his hand.
[6] The State charged Miller with Level 3 felony aggravated battery and Level 5
felony domestic battery resulting in serious bodily injury. The trial court found
Miller guilty of the Level 5 felony. The trial court sentenced him to the
maximum term of six years executed in the DOC. See Ind. Code § 35-59-2-6.
Miller now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Discussion & Decision
[7] This court has the constitutional authority to revise a sentence authorized by
statute if, “after due consideration of the trial court’s decision,” we find that the
sentence imposed is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender. See Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). The question under
App. R. 7(B) is “not whether another sentence is more appropriate” but rather
“whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” King v. State, 894 N.E.2d
265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The burden is on the defendant to persuade the
appellate court that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d
1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). “Sentencing review under Appellate Rule 7(B) is very
deferential to the trial court.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012).
[8] On appeal, Miller does not argue the length of his sentence is inappropriate in
light of the nature of the offense or his character; rather, Miller simply argues
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-85 | June 14, 2018 Page 3 of 5
that his sentence is inappropriate based on the trial court’s failure to
recommend purposeful incarceration as a term of his sentence. We recognize,
“the place that a sentence is to be served is an appropriate focus for application
of our review and revise authority.” See Hoe v. State, 851 N.E.2d 302, 304 n.4
(Ind. 2006) (discretionary placement is subject to Appellate Rule 7(B) review).
In this case, however, Miller does not challenge the location of his incarceration
but rather the failure to be recommended for a program in which he believes he
is entitled to participate.
[9] The trial court’s role in relation to purposeful incarceration is to identify which
defendants should be flagged as individuals most likely to benefit from
placement in the program. Miller did not request such a recommendation, and
even if considered, entry into the program is left to the discretion of the DOC.
Defendants do not have a right to placement in a program, and trial courts
themselves have no authority to require the DOC to place a particular
defendant into a program. See Cohn v. Strawhorn, 721 N.E.2d 342, 348-49 (Ind.
Ct. App. 1999) (finding that Indiana law does not create “a statutory
entitlement to educational programming for all, every, any, or each person
committed to the DOC” and it “is absurd to conclude that the General
Assembly could have intended that all DOC inmates be entitled to substance
abuse treatment regardless of whether they in fact suffer from substance
abuse”). Thus, Miller’s argument fails as the appropriateness of his placement
within a particular program is not an issue subject to this court’s review.
[10] We affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-85 | June 14, 2018 Page 4 of 5
Najam, J. and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-85 | June 14, 2018 Page 5 of 5