MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 14 2019, 6:20 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
Jane Ann Noblitt Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Columbus, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Josiah J. Swinney
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Perry K. Davis, August 14, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2619
v. Appeal from the Bartholomew
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable James D. Worton,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
03D01-1804-F3-2294
Tavitas, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2619 | August 14, 2019 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] Perry Davis appeals his sentences for robbery, a Level 5 felony, and criminal
confinement, a Level 5 felony. We affirm.
Issue
[2] Davis raises one issue, which we restate as whether his sentences are
inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character.
Facts
[3] In October 2017, W.M. agreed to work as a confidential informant in
Bartholomew County. On April 19, 2018, W.M. ran into her friend, Davis. As
they were walking, Davis led W.M. toward an apartment where Davis’ brother,
Randy Wilson, and Willowdale “Ann” Bennett were located. When they
arrived, Wilson was on a speakerphone with Chrissy Coatsworth, who accused
W.M. of being a confidential informant. Davis took W.M.’s purse, dumped the
contents out, and searched the purse. Davis also told W.M. that she was going
to be scalped. Coatsworth heard Wilson say that he was going to “shave”
W.M.’s head. Tr. Vol. II p. 139. Wilson also accused W.M. of being a
confidential informant and punched W.M. in the face. W.M. fell and was
dazed from Wilson’s punch.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2619 | August 14, 2019 Page 2 of 7
[4] W.M. thought she saw Davis holding a gun. 1 Wilson picked up cable wires to
bind W.M., but someone knocked on the door. Wilson and Davis went outside
to talk to the person, leaving W.M. inside with Bennett. W.M. saw her cell
phone on the counter and tried to grab it. Bennett pushed W.M. down and
slapped her, and they wrestled for W.M.’s phone. W.M. threw the phone and
ran for the door. As W.M. ran out the door, someone grabbed her hair, and she
fell to the ground. W.M. was screaming and halfway out the door, and
someone was trying to pull her inside by her hair. A neighbor saw the activity,
and Davis said, “the neighbor[’]s out[.] [L]et her go. . . .” Id. at 69. They
released W.M., and she ran away. W.M. had a “gash” on the top of her head
that required staples, a black eye, scrapes and cuts, and missing hair. Id. at 71.
[5] The State charged Davis with robbery resulting in bodily injury, a Level 3
felony; criminal confinement resulting in bodily injury, a Level 5 felony; battery
resulting in moderate bodily injury, a Level 6 felony; and theft, a Class A
misdemeanor. A jury found Davis guilty of robbery, a Level 5 felony; criminal
confinement, a Level 5 felony; battery, a Class A misdemeanor; and theft, a
Class A misdemeanor. The trial court vacated the battery and theft convictions
due to double jeopardy concerns.
[6] At sentencing, the trial court found no mitigating circumstances. The trial court
found the following aggravating circumstances: (1) Davis’ history of criminal or
1
A realistic-looking pellet gun was later found at the house.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2619 | August 14, 2019 Page 3 of 7
delinquent behavior; (2) Davis recently violated the conditions of probation,
parole, community corrections placement, or pretrial release granted to him; (3)
Davis had the opportunity for treatment and was unsuccessful; (4) Davis was
placed on probation multiple times and “had multiple petitions to revoke
probation filed against him;” and (5) the harm, injury, loss, or damage suffered
by the victim was “significant and greater than the elements necessary to prove
the commission of the offense.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 154. The trial
court then sentenced Davis to consecutive sentences of five years for the
robbery conviction and four years for the criminal confinement conviction, for
an aggregate sentence of nine years.
Analysis
[7] Davis contends that his sentence is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B)
provides that this court may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due
consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find that the sentence “is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender.” The defendant bears the burden to persuade this court that his or her
sentence is inappropriate. Wilson v. State, 966 N.E.2d 1259, 1266 (Ind. Ct. App.
2012) (citing Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)), trans. denied.
[8] In Indiana, trial courts can tailor an appropriate sentence to the circumstances
presented; the trial court’s judgment receives “considerable deference.” Sanders
v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895
N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008)), trans. denied. In conducting our review, we do
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2619 | August 14, 2019 Page 4 of 7
not look to see whether the defendant’s sentence is appropriate or “if another
sentence might be more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence
imposed is inappropriate.” Sanders, 71 N.E.3d at 844 (citing King v. State, 894
N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)). When determining whether a sentence
is inappropriate, the advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has
selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Childress, 848
N.E.2d at 1081.
[9] Here, Davis was convicted of two Level 5 felonies. The sentencing range for a
Level 5 felony is one to six years, with an advisory sentence of three years. See
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6. The trial court sentenced Davis to five years for robbery,
a Level 5 felony, and four years for criminal confinement, a Level 5 felony,
with the sentences to be served consecutively for an aggregate sentence of nine
years.
[10] Regarding the nature of the offenses, Davis, his brother, and another woman
robbed, beat, and confined W.M. because they thought she acted as a
confidential informant against someone else. During the incident, Davis
threatened to scalp W.M. W.M. escaped only when a neighbor heard her
screaming and saw the attack. As a result of the attack, W.M. had a “gash” on
the top of her head that required staples, a black eye, scrapes and cuts, and
missing hair. Tr. Vol. II p. 71. In the presentence investigation, Davis claimed
to have been in the “wrong place at the wrong time” and denied battering
W.M. but conceded that he “did not do anything to help her.” Appellant’s
App. Vol. III p. 9.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2619 | August 14, 2019 Page 5 of 7
[11] As to Davis’ character, twenty-two-year-old Davis argues that we should revise
his sentence because: (1) he apologized and assumed responsibility for his
actions; (2) he requested drug treatment: (3) he participated in programs at the
jail; (4) he has a family history of abuse and drug addiction; and (5) he has a
minimal criminal history. At his sentencing hearing, Davis downplayed his
criminal history. The record, however, reveals that, as a juvenile, Davis
participated in an informal adjustment in 2010 for an act that would have been
battery if committed by an adult, a Class A misdemeanor. In 2013, Davis was
adjudicated a delinquent for battery resulting in bodily injury, a Class A
misdemeanor, and for resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor. As
an adult, Davis has a 2014 conviction for domestic battery, a Class A
misdemeanor; a 2017 conviction for possession of marijuana, a Class B
misdemeanor; and a 2017 conviction for battery resulting in bodily injury, a
Class A misdemeanor. At the time of the instant offense, he was on probation
for the battery and possession of marijuana convictions. In his presentence
investigation, Davis admitted to regular use of marijuana and
methamphetamine and experimentation with valium or Xanax and
Ecstasy/MDMA.
[12] We acknowledge Davis’ difficult and troubled childhood and the apparent
influence of his brother in these offenses. Given the brutality of the acts against
W.M., Davis’ criminal history, and the fact that Davis downplays his
involvement in these offenses, however, we cannot say that the nine-year
sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2619 | August 14, 2019 Page 6 of 7
Conclusion
[13] Davis’ nine-year sentence is not inappropriate. We affirm.
[14] Affirmed.
Crone, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2619 | August 14, 2019 Page 7 of 7