MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 21 2018, 6:22 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Evan K. Hammond Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
J.T. Whitehead
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Isaiah Morrell, September 21, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-1224
v. Appeal from the Grant Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Dana J.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Kenworthy, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
27D02-1309-FB-65
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1224 | September 21, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Isaiah Morrell (“Morrell”) challenges his aggregate sentence of ten years, with
four years suspended to probation, imposed upon his convictions for two counts
of Sexual Misconduct with a Minor, as Class B felonies.1 He presents the sole
issue of whether his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] During 2012, Morrell served as a volunteer youth group leader at Living Water
Apostolic Church in Grant County, Indiana. On two occasions, Morrell had
sexual intercourse with one of the youth group members, fourteen-year-old
S.P.2
[3] On September 9, 2013, the State charged Morrell with two counts of Sexual
Misconduct with a Minor. He was tried by a jury on March 13 and 14, 2018
and he was convicted as charged. On April 9, 2018, the trial court imposed
upon Morrell concurrent sentences of ten years imprisonment, with four years
suspended to probation. Morrell now appeals.
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9.
2
S.P. testified that there may have been a third occasion, but she could clearly remember only two instances.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1224 | September 21, 2018 Page 2 of 5
Discussion and Decision
[4] At the time of Morrell’s offenses, Indiana Code Section 30-50-2-5 provided that
a person who committed a Class B felony was subject to a sentencing range of
six to twenty years, with an advisory sentence of ten years. The trial court
imposed upon Morrell the advisory sentence, with four years suspended. In so
doing, the trial court found as an aggravating circumstance that Morrell had
been in a position of trust with S.P. In mitigation, the trial court found that
Morrell had only a minor criminal history (driving with a suspended license),
he was likely to respond to short term incarceration or probation, and
imprisonment would result in hardship to his dependent children.
[5] Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), this “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.” In performing our review, we assess “the
culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to
others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell v.
State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). The principal role of such review is
to attempt to leaven the outliers. Id. at 1225. The “considerable deference”
given to the trial court’s sentencing judgment “should prevail unless overcome
by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense
(such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the
defendant’s character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1224 | September 21, 2018 Page 3 of 5
of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015) (citing
Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222).
[6] As for the nature of the offenses, Morrell twice had sexual intercourse with a
teenager in his youth group, thereby violating a position of trust he had been
given. As to his character, Morrell had minimal criminal history. During the
four years he was out on bond, he committed no additional offenses, was
employed, and provided support for his children.
[7] For his two offenses, Morrell received concurrent advisory sentences. The trial
court showed additional leniency by suspending four years to probation.
According to Morrell, he should have received the minimum sentence of six
years, with no suspension. Morrell asserts “more mitigating factors were
identified [compared to] the lone aggravating factor,” Appellant’s Brief at 9,
thus suggesting that equal weight is to be attributed to each factor. However,
the weight given to the trial court’s reasons for imposing a sentence is not
subject to appellate review. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007),
clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218.
[8] Having reviewed the matter, we conclude that the trial court did not impose an
inappropriate sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B), and the sentence does not
warrant appellate revision. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the sentence
imposed by the trial court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1224 | September 21, 2018 Page 4 of 5
Conclusion
[9] The sentence imposed upon Morrell is not inappropriate.
[10] Affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1224 | September 21, 2018 Page 5 of 5