MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 17 2019, 10:27 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
James Harper Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Harper & Harper, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Valparaiso, Indiana
Justin F. Roebel
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Daniel Shoffner, December 17, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-360
v. Appeal from the LaPorte Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Thomas Alevizos,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
46C01-1406-MR-219
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-360 | December 17, 2019 Page 1 of 7
[1] Daniel Shoffner appeals his sentence for Class A felony voluntary
manslaughter. 1 He asserts his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of
his offense and his character. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On or about June 13, 2014, Daniel Shoffner and his girlfriend Birdie Elder were
drinking at their house in LaPorte, Indiana. They were upstairs and got into an
argument about Elder’s family. Shoffner used a pocketknife to stab Elder in the
neck, in the chest, and on the hand that Elder used to try to block his thrusts.
Elder collapsed, and Shoffner held her for ten to twenty minutes until she
stopped breathing. He then dragged her body down the stairs and placed her
body in a chest freezer on the back porch.
[3] Shoffner attempted to commit suicide by taking Elder’s Xanax pills, shooting
insulin into his stomach, and cutting his wrists. He later went to the hospital
and received stitches for the cuts on his wrists. On June 15, 2014, Shoffner
called his daughter and told her he had killed Elder. Shoffner’s daughter called
911. Officers responded to Shoffner’s house, found Elder’s body in the freezer,
and arrested Shoffner.
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-1-3 (1997).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-360 | December 17, 2019 Page 2 of 7
[4] The State charged Shoffner with murder. 2 Shoffner filed a notice of insanity
defense and a motion for psychiatric examination. Doctors evaluated Shoffner
to determine his competency to stand trial and his ability to appreciate the
wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offense. On November 16, 2018,
the parties entered an agreement whereby Shoffner would plead guilty but
mentally ill to voluntary manslaughter and, in exchange, his sentence would
not exceed forty years, with a maximum of thirty-five years executed.
[5] At sentencing, the trial court found Shoffner’s extensive criminal history to be
an aggravating circumstance. The court also found as additional aggravating
circumstances that Shoffner was in a position of trust to the victim, the victim
was of advanced age, and Shoffner was out on bond when he killed Elder. The
court found Shoffner’s guilty plea to be a mitigating factor. The trial court also
found Shoffner’s history of mental illness to be a mitigating factor, but only
“slightly mitigating because he’s already been given somewhat [of] a break . . .
because of the nature of his plea.” (Tr. Vol. II at 89.) The court sentenced
Shoffner to forty years in the Indiana Department of Correction, with thirty-five
years executed and five years suspended to probation.
Discussion and Decision
2
Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 (2007).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-360 | December 17, 2019 Page 3 of 7
[6] After due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we may revise a sentence
authorized by statute if the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and the character of the offender. Ind. App. R. 7(B). Our role in
reviewing a sentence pursuant to Appellate Rule 7(B) “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
perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225
(Ind. 2008). “The defendant bears the burden of persuading this court that his
or her sentence is inappropriate.” Kunberger v. State, 46 N.E.3d 966, 972 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2015). “Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on the
culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to
others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.”
Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
[7] A Class A felony is punishable by a fixed term between twenty and fifty years,
with an advisory sentence of thirty years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4. Shoffner’s
plea agreement provided he would plead guilty but mentally ill to Class A
felony voluntary manslaughter, and in exchange his sentence would not exceed
forty years, with the executed portion of the sentence not to exceed thirty-five
years. The trial court imposed a sentence that was within the range allowed by
statute and above the advisory sentence. It was the maximum sentence that
could be imposed consistent with his plea agreement. Shoffner asks us to revise
his sentence downward to the advisory sentence of thirty years.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-360 | December 17, 2019 Page 4 of 7
[8] The nature of Shoffner’s offense was serious and heinous. Elder allowed
Shoffner to stay in her house because he did not have another place to live.
Shoffner was a six-foot-one, 250-pound, middle-age male, and Elder was an
elderly woman. Shoffner stabbed her multiple times, while she tried to stop
him. He did not notify authorities or seek medical help for Shoffner after he
stabbed her. Instead, he held her for ten to twenty minutes until she died. Even
after she died, he did not notify authorities. Rather, he placed her body in a
chest freezer and left her body there for days. The coroner had to wait two days
for Elder’s body to thaw before performing the autopsy. The nature of
Shoffner’s offense merits a sentence above the advisory. See Reis v. State, 88
N.E.3d 1099, 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (holding egregious nature of
defendant’s offense supported near-maximum sentence)
[9] Shoffner argues he deserves a lesser sentence because of his long-standing
history of schizophrenia. Our Indiana Supreme Court has directed trial courts
to “carefully consider on the record what mitigating weight, if any, to accord to
any evidence of mental illness, even though there is no obligation to give the
evidence the same weight the defendant does.” Weeks v. State, 697 N.E.2d 28,
30 (Ind. 1998). The court should look to the defendant’s ability to control his
behavior, limitations on defendant’s functioning, the duration of the illness, and
the nexus between the illness and commission of the crime. Id. Shoffner’s
medical records indicate he was diagnosed with schizophrenia at age eighteen.
He sought treatment for the condition at various times throughout his life. In
fact, in May 2014, shortly before Elder’s death, Shoffner contacted a medical
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-360 | December 17, 2019 Page 5 of 7
services provider and requested medication, but the provider denied his request
because he had been absent from treatment for eight months.
[10] It is unclear to what extent Shoffner’s illness minimizes his culpability. He was
voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the offense, and he had discontinued
treatment months before committing the offense. In speaking with detectives,
Shoffner described the offense in a lucid manner. However, during one mental
health evaluation, Shoffner told the psychologist he did not remember the
killing because he was too intoxicated at the time of the offense. In two other
mental health examinations, he told the evaluators that he experienced auditory
and visual hallucinations at the time of the offense and believed Elder was
possessed by demons when he killed her.
[11] Further, the trial court found Shoffner’s mental illness to be a mitigating factor,
but the court described it as a “slight mitigator” because Shoffner’s plea
agreement provided some leniency. (Appellant App. Vol. III at 76.) Shoffner
was originally charged with murder, but he pled guilty to the lesser charge of
voluntary manslaughter, and his plea agreement limited the executed portion of
his sentence to thirty-five years. Thus, Shoffner’s mental illness does not render
his sentence inappropriate. See Salyers v. State, 862 N.E.2d 650, 654 (Ind. 2007)
(holding sentence of life without parole was appropriate for defendant that
suffered from mental illness and pled guilty but mentally ill to killing a police
officer).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-360 | December 17, 2019 Page 6 of 7
[12] Additionally, Shoffner’s significant criminal history reflects poorly on his
character. He has two previous felony convictions and thirteen pervious
misdemeanor convictions. These convictions include battery, theft, and
criminal recklessness. He also has a history of not complying with conditions
of probation or community corrections. At the time he committed the instant
offense, he was out on bond for charges of theft and operating a vehicle while
intoxicated. Therefore, we hold Shoffner’s sentence is not inappropriate given
the nature of his offense and his character. See Norris v. State, 113 N.E.3d 1245,
1256-57 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (holding sentence was not inappropriate,
particularly considering defendant’s extensive criminal history), reh’g denied,
trans. denied.
Conclusion
[13] Shoffner murdered an elderly woman after she allowed him to stay with her.
He stabbed her multiple times, dragged her body down a set of stairs, and
stuffed her body into a freezer. The trial court considered Shoffner’s history of
mental illness but gave it little weight because of the nature of Shoffner’s plea
agreement. His criminal history was extensive, including multiple previous
convictions involving violence. We cannot say his sentence is inappropriate
given the nature of his offense and his character, and accordingly we affirm.
[14] Affirmed.
Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-360 | December 17, 2019 Page 7 of 7
Daniel Shoffner v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion