MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Dec 11 2020, 8:59 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
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
Anthony C. Lawrence Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Caryn N. Szyper
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Sarah D. Haynes, December 11, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-1466
v. Appeal from the Henry Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Bob A. Witham,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
33C01-2002-F5-18
Tavitas, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1466 | December 11, 2020 Page 1 of 12
Case Summary
[1] Following Sarah Haynes’ entry of a guilty plea, she appeals her three-year
sentence for intimidation with a deadly weapon, a Level 5 felony. We affirm.
Issues
[2] Haynes raises two issues on appeal, which we restate as follows:
I. Whether the trial court overlooked a significant mitigating
factor.
II. Whether Haynes’ sentence is inappropriate in light of the
nature of the offense and Haynes’ character.
Facts 1
[3] On February 23, 2020, Haynes’ sister, Kailee Haynes (“Kailee”), drove their
mother, Pamela Edwards, to Edwards’ home in New Castle, Indiana. Two of
Haynes’ children were in the back seat of the vehicle. The children, who were
then fourteen and ten years of age, remained in the vehicle as Kailee assisted
her mother into the house. Haynes was in the house when P.E. and Kailee
entered.
[4] While Kailee was inside, Haynes exited the house and climbed into the front
seat of Kailee’s vehicle. Haynes had not seen the children for an extended
1
The facts are largely gleaned from the probable cause affidavit and pre-sentence investigation report
(“PSI”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1466 | December 11, 2020 Page 2 of 12
period of time. Haynes engaged the children in conversation and held one
child’s arm. Both children were upset by the interaction. One child exited the
vehicle and pulled Haynes away from the other child, who was still inside the
vehicle.
[5] Kailee emerged from the house and told Haynes that Haynes was not allowed
access to the children. Haynes exited the vehicle, shouted obscenities at Kailee,
and struck Kailee’s face and head multiple times. Haynes then retrieved a knife
from P.E.’s porch and told Kailee, “[B]****, your [sic] not going to wake up
from this.” Haynes’ App. Vol. II pp. 16-17. Haynes only dropped the knife
after P.E. and Haynes’ boyfriend intervened. Haynes continued to strike Kailee
in the face and head. The police were notified. Haynes admitted to the police
that she fought Kailee and that Haynes held a knife during the altercation.
Haynes, however, represented that the knife was a small keychain knife, which
was contradicted by both Kailee and Haynes’ boyfriend.
[6] On February 24, 2020, the State charged Haynes with intimidation, a Level 5
felony, and two counts of domestic battery committed in the presence of a child
less than sixteen years old, Level 6 felonies. On March 3, 2020, the State and
Haynes tendered a plea agreement to the trial court wherein Haynes would
plead guilty to intimidation, a Level 5 felony, in exchange for the State’s
agreement to: (1) dismiss the domestic battery counts; and (2) the imposition of
a sentence “cap[ped]” at three years. Haynes’ App. Vol. II p. 34.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1466 | December 11, 2020 Page 3 of 12
[7] The trial court conducted Haynes’ sentencing hearing on July 7, 2020. At the
hearing, Haynes apologized to Kailee. Also, Haynes answered affirmatively
when defense counsel asked whether “emotions were running high” and
whether Haynes “lost a little bit of control” because the dispute involved
Haynes’ children. Tr. Vol. II p. 8. In remarks to the trial court, Haynes stated:
“I need to get into some kind of treatment and maybe some anger management.
I need to see a counselor so I can get back re-acquainted with my kids. That
was a Court order that I had out of Delaware County and that I have yet to
do.” Id. at 9. Additionally, Haynes testified that she: (1) had been sober for
four months; (2) was taking Suboxone to manage her substance abuse; (3) did
not require in-patient substance abuse treatment; and (4) attributed her
problems to the lack of anger management treatment and counseling. Haynes
did not present evidence regarding her mental health history or diagnoses; and
Haynes did not argue the existence of any mitigating factors to the trial court.
[8] The State elicited Haynes’ testimony that a family court judge ordered Haynes
to undergo counseling in March 2019, which Haynes did not complete. In the
following exchange, Haynes acknowledged past mental health issues:
Q: Have you ever received a mental health evaluation or
recommendation?
A: [ ] I have been in psychiatric wards and things of that nature.
With me being all the way sober now I feel that I could do
something with myself having this long of a time [without
abusing] substances.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1466 | December 11, 2020 Page 4 of 12
Id. at 10.
[9] In imposing its sentence, the trial court found Haynes’ prior criminal history
and previous “violat[ions] [of] conditions of probation, parole or pardon” to be
aggravating factors and identified Haynes’ acceptance of responsibility as a
mitigating factor. Haynes’ App. Vol. II p. 57. The trial court also found
Haynes’ entry of a guilty plea to be a diminished mitigating factor that was
offset by the State’s agreement to a three-year advisory sentence cap on
sentencing. The trial court found that the aggravating factors outweighed the
mitigating factors and warranted an enhanced sentence but for the State’s
agreement to a “capped” advisory sentence. The trial court imposed the
advisory sentence of three years executed in the Department of Correction
(“DOC”) and “recommended” that Haynes undergo counseling and/or
treatment for her anger management, mental health, and substance abuse issues
in the DOC. Id. Haynes now appeals.
Analysis
I. Mitigating Factors
[10] Haynes argues that the trial court abused its sentencing discretion by failing to
find Haynes’ mental health to be a significant mitigating factor. As the State
argues, Haynes has waived this issue by her failure to argue it below. See Banks
v. State, 841 N.E.2d 654, 659 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (defendant waived claims of
error regarding the trial court’s failure to identify mitigating circumstances
because defendant failed to raise them at the sentencing hearing), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1466 | December 11, 2020 Page 5 of 12
[11] Waiver nothwithstanding, Haynes’ claim fails. “[S]ubject to the review and
revise power [under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B)], sentencing decisions rest
within the sound discretion of the trial court and are reviewed on appeal only
for an abuse of discretion.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007),
clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). An abuse of discretion occurs
where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts before the
court or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.
Id. A trial court may abuse its discretion in a number of ways, including: (1)
failing to enter a sentencing statement at all; (2) entering a sentencing statement
that includes aggravating and mitigating factors that are unsupported by the
record; (3) entering a sentencing statement that omits reasons that are clearly
supported by the record; or (4) entering a sentencing statement that includes
reasons that are improper as a matter of law. Id. at 490-91.
[12] A trial court is not obligated to accept a defendant’s claim as to what constitutes
a mitigating circumstance. Rascoe v. State, 736 N.E.2d 246, 249 (Ind. 2000). A
trial court has discretion to determine whether the factors are mitigating, and it
is not required to explain why it does not find the defendant’s proffered factors
to be mitigating. Haddock v. State, 800 N.E.2d 242, 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). A
claim that the trial court failed to find a mitigating factor requires the defendant
to establish that the mitigating factor is significant and clearly supported by the
record. Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 493.
[13] “Mental illness is not necessarily a significant mitigating factor; ‘rather, [it] is a
mitigating factor to be used in certain circumstances, such as when the evidence
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1466 | December 11, 2020 Page 6 of 12
demonstrates longstanding mental health issues or when the jury finds that a
defendant is mentally ill.’” Townsend v. State, 45 N.E.3d 821, 831 (Ind. Ct. App.
2015), trans. denied. “[I]n order for a [defendant’s] mental history to provide a
basis for establishing a mitigating factor, there must be a nexus between the
defendant’s mental health and the crime in question.” Weedman v. State, 21
N.E.3d 873, 894 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. Our Supreme Court has
identified the following factors that bear on the weight, if any, that should be
given to mental illness in sentencing: (1) the extent of the defendant’s inability
to control his or her behavior due to the disorder or impairment; (2) the overall
limitations on functioning; (3) the duration of the illness; and (4) the extent of
any nexus between the disorder or impairment and the crime. Archer v. State,
689 N.E.2d 678, 685 (Ind. 1997).
[14] Here, despite Haynes’ failure to argue below that her mental health history was
mitigating, the trial court’s sentencing recommendation indicates that the court
considered Haynes’ mental health in imposing its sentence. Ultimately, in its
sound discretion, the trial court found that Haynes’ mental health issues lacked
enough mitigating weight to overcome the aggravating factors.
[15] Although the record demonstrates that Haynes suffers from mental health
issues, Haynes failed to: (1) present any argument or evidence to support her
contention on appeal that a nexus existed between the offense and her
diagnosed mental health conditions; or (2) demonstrate that her mental health
conditions affected her ability to control her impulses or impaired her faculties
with respect to the crime. See Weedman, 21 N.E.3d at 894 (finding no abuse of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1466 | December 11, 2020 Page 7 of 12
the trial court’s discretion in failing to identify Weedman’s mental health as
a mitigating circumstance where he failed to show a nexus between
his mental health and the offense). To the contrary, Haynes testified that
emotions simply ran high and she lost control due to her need for anger
management treatment and counseling. 2 Haynes’ testimony is not sufficient to
establish the requisite nexus. Thus, the trial court’s determination that Haynes’
mental health history was not a mitigating factor is not against the logic and
effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. Accordingly, we find
no abuse of discretion.
II. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B)
[16] Haynes also argues that her sentence is inappropriate pursuant to Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B). The Indiana Constitution authorizes independent
appellate review and revision of a trial court’s sentencing decision. See Ind.
Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6; Jackson v. State, 145 N.E.3d 783, 784 (Ind. 2020). Our
Supreme Court has implemented this authority through Indiana Appellate Rule
7(B), which allows this Court to revise a sentence when it is “inappropriate in
light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Our review
of a sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not an act of second guessing the
trial court’s sentence; rather, “[o]ur posture on appeal is [ ] deferential” to the
2
In the PSI, Haynes acknowledged her mental health diagnoses but did not link her predicament to her
mental health issues. See Haynes’ App. Vol. II p. 48 (“[Haynes] believes her current mental state is good.”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1466 | December 11, 2020 Page 8 of 12
trial court. Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1174, 1181 (Ind. 2016) (citing Rice v.
State, 6 N.E.3d 940, 946 (Ind. 2014)). We exercise our authority under
Appellate Rule 7(B) only in “exceptional cases, and its exercise ‘boils down to
our collective sense of what is appropriate.’” Mullins v. State, 148 N.E.3d 986,
987 (Ind. 2020) (quoting Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 160 (Ind. 2019)).
[17] “‘The principal role of appellate review is to attempt to leaven the outliers.’”
McCain v. State, 148 N.E.3d 977, 985 (Ind. 2020) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895
N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008)). The point is “not to achieve a perceived
correct sentence.” Id. “Whether a sentence should be deemed inappropriate
‘turns on our sense of 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.’” Id. (quoting Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224). Deference to the trial
court’s sentence “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 of good character).” Stephenson
v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).
[18] 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. Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014). A reviewing
court is thus “unlikely to consider an advisory sentence inappropriate.” Shelby
v. State, 986 N.E.2d 345, 371 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans denied. Rather, the
defendant “bears a particularly heavy burden in persuading us that his sentence
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1466 | December 11, 2020 Page 9 of 12
is inappropriate when the trial court imposes the advisory sentence.” Fernbach
v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App, 2011), trans. denied. Here,
Haynes pleaded guilty to intimidation with a deadly weapon, a Level 5 felony.
The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is between one and six years, with an
advisory sentence of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b). Here, the trial
court honored the parties’ agreement that Haynes’ sentence should be capped
and imposed a three-year advisory sentence.
[19] Our analysis of the “nature of the offense” requires us to look at the nature,
extent, and depravity of the offense. Sorenson v. State, 133 N.E.3d 717, 729 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. The nature of the instant offense is as follows:
after being told by Kailee that Haynes was not allowed to be in the presence of
Haynes’ children, Haynes repeatedly struck Kailee in the face and head in the
children’s presence. Haynes then retrieved a knife and told Kailee, “[B]****,
your [sic] not going to wake up from this.” Haynes’ App. Vol. II pp. 16-17.
Haynes only dropped the knife after others intervened. Even after she was
disarmed, Haynes continued to strike Kailee’s face and head.
[20] Our analysis of the character of the offender involves a “broad consideration of
a defendant’s qualities,” Adams v. State, 120 N.E.3d 1058, 1065 (Ind. Ct. App.
2019), including the defendant’s age, criminal history, background, and
remorse. James v. State, 868 N.E.2d 543, 548-59 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
Moreover, “[t]he significance of a criminal history in assessing a defendant’s
character and an appropriate sentence varies based on the gravity, nature,
proximity, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current offense.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1466 | December 11, 2020 Page 10 of 12
Sandleben v. State, 29 N.E.3d 126, 137 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citing Bryant v.
State, 841 N.E.2d 1154, 1156 (Ind. 2006)). “Even a minor criminal history is a
poor reflection of a defendant’s character.” Prince v. State, 148 N.E.3d 1171,
1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (citing Moss v. State, 13 N.E.3d 440, 448 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2014), trans. denied).
[21] The record reveals that Haynes was thirty-eight years old at the time of
sentencing. Haynes is a mother of four children; has not been employed since
2018; has relied on her family for financial support; and owed a child support
arrearage of $3,000.00 when the PSI was prepared. In March 2019, a family
court ordered Haynes to undergo anger management counseling and/or
treatment, which she had yet to complete at the time of the sentencing hearing
in the instant case. Although Haynes expressed remorse to Kailee at the
sentencing hearing, Kailee told the trial court that Haynes’ “erratic behavior is
becoming something to expect” and requested the imposition of a maximum
sentence. See Haynes’ App. Vol. II p. 51. Haynes has been diagnosed with “Bi-
Polar Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder, and Identity Disorder[,]” but Haynes
maintains that she is in “good” mental health. Id. at 48.
[22] Haynes’ adult 3 criminal history includes three felony convictions and five
misdemeanor convictions. Haynes has been convicted of dealing in a Schedule
IV controlled substance, a Class C felony (2008); conversion, Class A
3
Haynes has no juvenile criminal history.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1466 | December 11, 2020 Page 11 of 12
misdemeanors (2011, 2013, 2017); theft, a Class A misdemeanor (2015);
unlawful possession of a syringe, Level 6 felonies (2017, 2019); and criminal
mischief, a Class B misdemeanor (2019). Courts have shown leniency by
granting Haynes suspended sentences, formal probation, and community
corrections placements. Haynes, however, has repeatedly violated probation,
and her probation, home detention, and suspended sentences have been
revoked on numerous prior occasions. The PSI also documents Haynes’
longtime substance abuse issues. Haynes admits that she has a
methamphetamine dependency, abused opiates from age fourteen to twenty-
seven, and used marijuana three times a week.
[23] Despite ample opportunities to change her behavior and undergo treatment,
Haynes has not addressed her longstanding anger issues, undergone substance
abuse treatment, or refrained from criminal activity. Haynes’ violent attack on
a family member with a deadly weapon in the presence of her children does
nothing to persuade us that her three-year advisory sentence is inappropriate.
Conclusion
[24] The trial court did not abuse its sentencing discretion, and Haynes’ advisory
sentence is not inappropriate. We affirm.
[25] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1466 | December 11, 2020 Page 12 of 12