MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Mar 30 2020, 11:18 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
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
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn, Indiana
Catherine E. Brizzi
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Tabetha Lynn Smith, March 30, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-2129
v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Sarah K. Mullican,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
84D03-1804-F1-1294
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2129 | March 30, 2020 Page 1 of 9
Statement of the Case
[1] Tabetha L. Smith (“Smith”) appeals the sentence imposed after she pled guilty
to Level 3 felony neglect of a dependent.1 Her sole argument is that her
sentence, part of which the trial court ordered her to serve at the Department of
Correction (“DOC”), is inappropriate. Concluding that Smith has failed to
show that her sentence is inappropriate, we affirm the sentence.
[2] We affirm.
Issue
Whether Smith’s sentence is inappropriate.
Facts
[3] Smith’s son, A.S. (“A.S.”), was born on December 3, 2017 at Methodist
Hospital in Indianapolis. He was Smith’s seventh child. A.S. weighed only
four pounds, thirteen ounces at birth and suffered from numerous medical
issues, including Down Syndrome, two holes in his heart, respiratory issues,
swallowing issues, and intestinal issues that required him to use a nasal feeding
tube. Because of his low birth weight and medical issues, A.S. was transferred
to Riley Hospital (“Riley”). His physician at Riley was Dr. Christiansen (“Dr.
Christiansen”).
1
IND. CODE § 35-46-1-4.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2129 | March 30, 2020 Page 2 of 9
[4] Riley discharged A.S. on January 8, 2018. Riley staff trained Smith how to use
the feeding tube and told her not to feed A.S. with a bottle. At the time of his
discharge, A.S. weighed approximately six pounds. Smith took A.S. to her
home in Terre Haute.
[5] A.S. had a follow-up appointment scheduled on January 10. Although the
record is not clear whether the appointment was scheduled with Riley or with
Terre Haute pediatrician Dr. Chakrabarti (“Dr. Chakrabarti”), Smith did not
take A.S. to the appointment. On January 12, Smith removed A.S.’s feeding
tube and began feeding A.S. with a bottle. Smith failed to take A.S. to a second
follow-up appointment on January 23.
[6] Smith eventually took A.S. to see Dr. Chakrabarti on January 26, when she told
the doctor that she had not been using the feeding tube for two weeks. Dr.
Chakrabarti’s notes indicate that Riley was not aware that Smith had removed
the feeding tube. In early February, a doctor told Smith to reinsert the feeding
tube, but Smith chose not to do so. Instead, she wanted to “try to get a second
opinion on if he even needed the feeding tube.” (Tr. at 69). Smith never sought
a second opinion.
[7] On February 27, Smith took A.S. to an appointment with Dr. Christiansen at
Riley. A.S. weighed approximately six pounds, thirteen ounces. Smith told
Dr. Christiansen that she had been feeding A.S. with a bottle for six weeks. Dr.
Christiansen told Smith to make sure that A.S. consumed a specific amount of
formula each day and to frequently check his weight.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2129 | March 30, 2020 Page 3 of 9
[8] Smith and A.S. missed an appointment with Dr. Chakrabarti on March 7
because Smith had a dental appointment. Later that day, Smith took A.S. to a
local clinic to check his weight, which was approximately seven pounds and
three ounces. When Smith contacted Dr. Christiansen to inform her of A.S.’s
weight, the doctor told Smith to reinsert the feeding tube because A.S. was not
gaining enough weight. Smith did not reinsert the feeding tube, and A.S. died
four days later from severe dehydration.
[9] The State charged Smith with Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in
death, Level 3 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury,
Level 5 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in bodily injury, and Level 6
felony neglect of a dependent. Smith pled guilty to the Level 3 felony pursuant
to a plea agreement. The agreement further provided that the State would
dismiss the additional charges, and that Smith would be sentenced to sixteen
years. The agreement also provided that the parties would “argue how that 16
year sentence [would be] served, whether it be in the Department of Correction,
Community Correction, and/or probation, or any combination of the three.”
(App. Vol. 2 at 70).
[10] At the July 2019 sentencing hearing, Smith admitted that although Dr.
Christiansen had told her on March 7 to reinsert A.S.’s feeding tube because
A.S. was not gaining enough weight, Smith had continued to feed A.S. with a
bottle. When asked why she had not followed the doctor’s instructions, Smith
responded that she did not know.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2129 | March 30, 2020 Page 4 of 9
[11] After Smith had finished testifying, the trial court asked the parties if they had
any objection to it reviewing A.S.’s medical records from Riley, Dr.
Christiansen, and Dr. Chakrabarti. The parties had no objection but advised
the trial court that the records included more than 2000 pages. The trial court
asked the parties to agree on the medical records that they wanted to submit for
its review and explained that the medical records would not become part of the
record. The trial court also explained that it would continue the hearing to
allow the court to review the medical records. Neither party objected.
[12] When the sentencing hearing continued in August 2019, the trial court told the
parties that it had read A.S.’s medical records and had “spent a lot of time
looking at the Riley record[.]” (Tr. at 84). The trial court reviewed its notes in
court and asked the parties questions. Thereafter, the parties made their
arguments. The State asked the trial court to sentence Smith to sixteen years in
the DOC, and Smith responded that she did not “believe an incarceration [was]
necessary from this point on.” (Tr. at 93).
[13] The trial court found Smith’s history of mental illness to be a mitigating factor.
The trial court also found the following aggravating factors: (1) Smith’s
criminal history, which included two misdemeanor convictions; (2) A.S. was
less than twelve years old; (3) A.S. was disabled; and (4) A.S. was in Smith’s
care and custody.
[14] The trial court then sentenced Smith as follows:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2129 | March 30, 2020 Page 5 of 9
But this is still an extremely fragile baby. [He] needed a great
deal of care. And the reasons why the nasal tube was there was
because the - there w[ere] swallowing issues and [an] inability to
um, ingest the formula. Um, I think you repeatedly ignored the
doctor, even though Riley told you that that tube had to be back
in and you just didn’t do it. I, I don’t know why; you said you
don’t know why um, but that clearly is what led to the death of
the child. So the Court is gonna impose the sixteen (16) year
sentence. I’m gonna execute twelve (12) and suspend four (4),
and place you on formal probation, all of which will be executed
in the Department of Correction[].
(Tr. at 97). Smith now appeals her sentence.
Decision
[15] Smith argues that her sentence is inappropriate. She does not challenge the
duration of her sentence, which was set forth in the plea agreement. Rather,
she challenges the trial court’s sentencing decision regarding her placement in
the DOC.
[16] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we 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 of persuading this Court that
her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind.
2006). The principal role of a Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven
the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those
charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2129 | March 30, 2020 Page 6 of 9
perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225
(Ind. 2008).
[17] 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. Here, Smith was convicted of
a Level 3 felony. The sentencing range for a Level 3 felony is between three
and sixteen years with an advisory sentence of nine years. See I.C. § 35-50-2-
5(b). The trial court sentenced Smith to sixteen years consistent with the terms
of the plea agreement and ordered her to serve twelve years in the DOC and
four years on probation.
[18] The location where a sentence is to be served is an appropriate focus for our
review and revise authority under Appellate Rule 7(B). Biddinger v. State, 868
N.E.2d 407, 414 (Ind. 2007). However, this Court has previously explained
that it will be “quite difficult” for a defendant to prevail on a claim that her
sentence is inappropriate. Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 343 (Ind. Ct. App.
2007). This is because “the question under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether
another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the
sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Id. at 344 (emphasis in original). A
defendant challenging the placement of a sentence must convince us that the
given placement is itself inappropriate. Id.
[19] Turning to the nature of Smith’s neglect of a dependent conviction, we note
that Smith’s son, A.S., was born with numerous medical issues, including
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2129 | March 30, 2020 Page 7 of 9
Down Syndrome, two holes in his heart, respiratory issues, swallowing issues,
and intestinal issues that required him to use a nasal feeding tube. When A.S.
was discharged from the hospital, Riley staff trained Smith to use the feeding
tube and specifically told her not to feed A.S. with a bottle. Despite A.S.’s
fragile condition and Riley’s specific instructions, Smith failed to attend
scheduled follow-up appointments, removed the feeding tube, and began to feed
A.S. with a bottle. In early February, a doctor told Smith to reinsert the feeding
tube. Smith refused to do so stating that she wanted a second opinion as to
whether A.S. needed a feeding tube. Smith never got that second opinion. On
March 7, after missing A.S.’s appointment to attend a dental appointment,
Smith took A.S. to a local clinic for a weight check. When Smith told Dr.
Christiansen how much A.S. weighed, the doctor told Smith to reinsert the
feeding tube because A.S. was not gaining enough weight. Smith disregarded
the doctor’s instructions, and A.S. died four days later of severe dehydration.
[20] Turning to the nature of Smith’s character, we note that she has two prior
misdemeanor convictions. Even a minor criminal history reflects poorly on a
defendant’s character for the purposes of sentencing. Rutherford v. State, 866
N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Smith’s character is further revealed by
her utter disregard for the health and welfare of her fragile two-month old baby
and by her refusal to heed the instructions of medical providers on how to meet
the basic needs of her child.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2129 | March 30, 2020 Page 8 of 9
[21] Smith has failed to meet her burden to persuade this Court that placement in
the DOC for twelve years for her Level 3 felony neglect of a dependent
conviction is inappropriate.
[22] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2129 | March 30, 2020 Page 9 of 9
Tabetha Lynn Smith v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion