FILED Dec 20 2019, 6:12 am
CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael R. Fisher Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana Courtney Staton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jonathan Belcher, December 20, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-830 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Lisa F. Borges, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G04-1710-F3-41224
May, Judge.
[1] Jonathan Belcher appeals his convictions of and aggregate sentence for two
counts of Level 3 felony aggravated battery, 1 one count each of Class B
1 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.5.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 1 of 19 misdemeanor battery 2 and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, 3
and the finding that he is an habitual offender. 4 He raises two issues on appeal,
which we expand and restate as the following three issues:
(1) whether there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Belcher understood and appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct;
(2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in its consideration of Belcher’s mental health at sentencing; and
(3) whether a 53-year-and-180-day sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and Belcher’s character.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [2] On October 19, 2017, David Smith, a regional sales manager for a chemical
coating company, flew from North Carolina to Indianapolis to assist in
interviewing applicants for a position in the company’s Indianapolis office.
Amjad Farah, Smith’s friend and colleague, traveled from the company’s
Michigan office to Indianapolis to also assist with the interviews. After Smith
and Farah finished conducting the interviews, they went to a downtown
2 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1. 3 Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1. 4 Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 2 of 19 Indianapolis steakhouse for dinner. They finished dinner around 6:30 pm and
walked to Monument Circle.
[3] Around this same time, Jennifer Crouch, her husband, and her children were
visiting Monument Circle. They were on vacation in Indianapolis to see family
and visit local attractions. Crouch’s husband and children walked up the steps
of the Indiana State Soldiers and Sailors Monument, and Crouch stayed toward
the base of the memorial to take a picture of her family. Belcher approached
Crouch and asked her what she was doing. She said that she was at the
monument with her children, and Belcher said, “you don’t have any kids.” (Tr.
Vol. II at 109.) Belcher was aggressive and his tone of voice was mean.
Belcher walked away for a brief period and then returned. Belcher pushed
Crouch and she fell flat on the ground. Belcher then backed up to get a running
start and kicked the front of Crouch’s head “like a football kickoff for a field
goal kicker.” (Id. at 92.) A bystander ran to Crouch, and Belcher walked
around the monument towards Smith and Farah.
[4] Smith and Farah were admiring the Soldiers and Sailors Monument when they
heard Belcher angrily yell out “mother f[*****].” (Id. at 29.) As Smith turned
his head toward the noise, Belcher punched him in the side of the head. Smith
went stiff and fell to the ground. Belcher started swinging at Farah, and one of
Belcher’s punches grazed Farah. When other bystanders started to yell, Belcher
walked away.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 3 of 19 [5] Officers responded to the scene, encountered Belcher, and commanded him to
get on the ground. Belcher shouted at the officers, “this is my ship” or “get off
my ship.” (Id. at 146.) When officers continued to command Belcher to get on
the ground, he responded “F[***] you. You get on the ground.” (Id. at 132.)
Belcher turned and briskly walked away from the officers. Belcher ignored
further repeated directions to stop and warnings that officers were going to
deploy their tasers. Eventually, an officer used a taser on Belcher. Belcher fell
to the ground and resisted officers trying to cuff him, but officers were able to
secure him and take him into custody. Belcher made a comment to a State
Police Trooper on the scene that the Indiana State Police did not have
jurisdiction over Monument Circle. Rather, Belcher asserted the Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) had jurisdiction.
[6] Ambulances rushed Smith and Crouch to local hospitals. Smith underwent
brain surgery in Indianapolis, and doctors placed him in a medically induced
coma. He stayed in an Indianapolis hospital for three weeks before being
transferred to a brain and spinal rehabilitation facility in Atlanta, Georgia. He
was incapacitated and required around-the-clock care. He was fed through a
feeding tube and received drugs intravenously. After seven months at the
Atlanta facility, his family decided to cease the life-sustaining measures and
Smith died on May 28, 2018.
[7] Crouch was released from the hospital approximately seven hours after the
incident. Crouch briefly lost consciousness after Belcher kicked her. At the
hospital, she had vertigo and struggled to sit in a chair. She also sustained an
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 4 of 19 eye injury. Crouch’s husband had to take six weeks off work to care for her.
She had balance issues that required her to use a wheelchair for a period and
then a walker, and she needed to attend physical therapy. Crouch also saw a
neurologist, who diagnosed her with a spinal fluid leak. Crouch thought she
would need surgery to correct that leak, but it resolved itself without surgery.
[8] The court referred Belcher to psychologist Dr. Don Olive to perform a
competence and sanity evaluation, and he met with Belcher at the Marion
County Jail on November 17, 2017. Dr. Olive reviewed records from the
Marion County Jail prior to visiting with Belcher. Those records indicated
Belcher’s previous diagnoses included Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, and
Depression. Belcher had received both inpatient and outpatient mental health
treatment in the past and was released from Community Hospital North on
October 11, 2017. During Belcher’s interview with Dr. Olive, Belcher
mentioned that he had been found not responsible by reason of insanity in a
previous case. He also talked about being stuck in a computer game and being
hunted by zombies. Dr. Olive concluded with reasonable psychological
certainty that Belcher was both not competent to stand trial and not criminally
responsible at the time of the alleged offenses.
[9] Dr. George Parker, a medical doctor and professor of clinical psychology at the
Indiana University School of Medicine, also performed a competency
evaluation. He met with Belcher at the Marion County Jail on November 30,
2017. Belcher began the interview by asking Dr. Parker, “[A]re you from a
water border or a land border?” (App. Vol. II at 83.) During the interview,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 5 of 19 Belcher repeatedly punched a code into an imaginary keypad on the interview
room partition. Dr. Parker found this behavior odd because, based on his
experience in conducting many competency and sanity evaluations, defendants
typically do not advertise their symptoms at the beginning of an interview.
Belcher claimed to be living in a video game and described the court
proceedings as part of the game. He mentioned that he had been found not
responsible by reason of insanity in a previous case. He also claimed to see
holograms of great white sharks. Dr. Parker learned Belcher lived in a general
population unit at the jail and did not cause any problems in the unit. Dr.
Parker also reviewed Belcher’s medical records, including a competence and
sanity report he himself had prepared in 2015 concerning a criminal case
involving Belcher. In 2015, Belcher told Dr. Parker that he became paranoid
when he smoked marijuana without also drinking alcohol. Dr. Parker
concluded with reasonable medical certainty that Belcher “may meet criteria for
diagnoses of malingering, schizophrenia and/or bipolar disorder” and opined
that Belcher was not competent to stand trial. 5 (Id. at 89.) Dr. Parker thought
there was a possibility Belcher was malingering because of the difference in
Belcher’s behavior between when he was in the general population unit and
when Dr. Parker interviewed him. Also, Belcher’s description of the holograms
he claimed to see was not typical of someone with schizophrenia, and Belcher’s
5 “Malinger” is defined as “to pretend or exaggerate incapacity or illness (as to avoid duty or work).” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malinger (last visited December 4, 2019).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 6 of 19 mental health records from the jail showed he campaigned to have his
medication dosage increased.
[10] On December 12, 2017, the trial court found Belcher not competent to stand
trial and committed him to the Indiana Family and Social Services
Administration (“FSSA”). On June 12, 2018, FSSA notified the trial court that
Belcher had regained competency to stand trial, and the sheriff returned Belcher
to the Marion County Jail.
[11] Dr. Parker met with Belcher again at the Marion County Jail on August 8,
2018, to perform a sanity evaluation. Belcher asked Dr. Parker, “are you the
one [sic] said I was lying?” (Id. at 142.) Belcher claimed he was hallucinating
at the time of the offenses and explained he had been found not responsible by
reason of insanity in a previous case. Belcher claimed the victims were
zombies. He described them as “in [his] face.” (Id. at 148.) He also said “[i]t
looked like they was [sic] about to run in on me.” (Id.) Dr. Parker examined
Belcher’s jail mental health records and found Belcher reported to the jail
mental health staff that he last used marijuana on the day of his arrest. Jail staff
also told Dr. Parker that Belcher did not act agitated while confined in his
dorm. Ultimately, Dr. Parker concluded with a reasonable degree of medical
certainty that Belcher was under the influence of voluntary intoxication at the
time of the offenses and, although he had a mental illness at the time, he had
been able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 7 of 19 [12] The court also referred Belcher to psychologist Dr. Stephanie Callaway for
competency and sanity evaluations. She met with Belcher at the Marion
County Jail on October 1, 2018. During the interview, Belcher denied ever
using illicit substances, which was inconsistent with his history. Belcher said he
thought he was on a spaceship at the time of the offenses. He also described
being surrounded by zombies and feeling like he was going to be attacked. He
told Dr. Callaway that a voice in his head gave him commands and that he
needed to follow the commands in order to avoid being attacked. He said he
hit Couch because he “thought she was trying to profile me to an assassination
agency to get me killed.” (Id. at 177.) He said the voice in his head told him to
go around the monument and hit Smith, so he did. Belcher also told Dr.
Callaway that he did not see the police officers until one of the officers
deployed his taser. Dr. Callaway noted the security footage of Monument
Circle in the hours before the offenses showed Belcher talking to himself and
acting agitated. Dr. Callaway concluded with a reasonable degree of
psychological certainty that Belcher was competent to stand trial. She also
opined Belcher suffered from a mental disease and lacked the ability to perceive
the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offenses because of the mental
disease’s symptoms.
[13] The State charged Belcher with two counts of Level 3 felony aggravated battery
and one count each of Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury, 6
6 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 8 of 19 Level 6 felony battery resulting in moderate bodily injury, 7 Class B
misdemeanor battery, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.
The State also filed an information alleging Belcher was a habitual offender.
The court conducted a bench trial on February 7, 8, and 19, 2019. At trial,
Belcher did not contest the facts of the offenses, but rather he contended that he
was not responsible by reason of insanity. Dr. Olive, Dr. Parker, and Dr.
Callaway each testified regarding their evaluations of Belcher. At the
conclusion of trial, the court rendered a verdict of guilty but mentally ill and
entered a judgment of conviction on all counts. The court also determined
Belcher to be an habitual offender.
[14] At a sentencing hearing on March 20, 2019, the court vacated the Level 6
felony battery conviction and the Level 5 felony battery conviction. The State
advocated for an aggravated sentence, noting the harm Smith endured was
greater than the harm needed to meet the elements of aggravated battery,
Belcher was on pre-trial release for a criminal trespass charge when he
committed the crimes, and Belcher had a significant criminal history, including
four felony convictions and eleven misdemeanor convictions. The State also
pointed out that Belcher failed to successfully complete probation multiple
times and refused mental health treatment on previous occasions. Further,
there were multiple victims in this case and a break in time between Belcher’s
attacks. Belcher argued his severe mental illness should be considered a
7 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 9 of 19 mitigator and noted his previous commitments to the Indiana Department of
Correction have not addressed his mental health problems.
[15] The court found the following aggravating factors: the offenses occurred within
the presence and hearing of minors, Belcher was on pre-trial release at the time
of the offenses, and Belcher appeared to lack remorse. The court also stated:
“The only mitigator that I could possibly find is his history of mental illness.
And I do believe he does have a mental illness.” (Tr. Vol. III at 84.)
Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of sixteen years for the first count of
Level 3 felony aggravated battery, enhanced by twenty years due to the finding
that Belcher was an habitual offender; sixteen years for the second count of
Level 3 felony aggravated battery; 365 days for Class A misdemeanor resisting
law enforcement; and 180 days for Class B misdemeanor battery. The court
ordered all the sentences served consecutively, for an aggregate executed
sentence of 53 years and 180 days.
Discussion and Decision 1. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[16] Belcher argues there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding
that he understood and appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct. In order
to obtain a conviction, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the
defendant committed the charged offense. Ind. Code § 35-41-4-1. However,
when the defendant raises the defense of insanity, as in Belcher’s case, the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 10 of 19 burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove the defense by a preponderance
of the evidence. Id. Indiana Code section 35-41-3-6 provides:
(a) A person is not responsible for having engaged in prohibited conduct if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the offense.
(b) As used in this section, ‘mental disease or defect’ means a severely abnormal mental condition that grossly and demonstrably impairs a person’s perception, but the term does not include an abnormality manifested by repeated unlawful or antisocial conduct.
A mentally ill defendant who fails to establish that he was unable to appreciate
the wrongfulness of his actions may be found guilty but mentally ill. 8 Galloway
v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699, 708 (Ind. 2010), reh’g denied.
[17] Belcher “faces a heavy burden” because he is appealing from a negative
judgment. Patterson v. State, 110 N.E.3d 429, 432 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). As our
8 As our Indiana Supreme Court has explained:
A verdict of guilty but mentally ill requires an evaluation and treatment of the defendant’s mental illness during his or her incarceration ‘in such a manner as is psychiatrically indicated,’ but otherwise imposes the same criminal sentence as a standard conviction of guilt. Ind. Code § 35-36-2-5(a), (c). By contrast, a verdict of nonresponsibility by reason of insanity may result in the defendant’s civil commitment if the trial court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is mentally ill and either dangerous or gravely disabled. I.C. § 35-36-2-4.
Barcroft v. State, 111 N.E.3d 997, 1002 n.2 (Ind. 2018).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 11 of 19 Indiana Supreme Court has explained, “[w]hether or not a defendant can
appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct is a question for the trier of fact.”
Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (Ind. 2004). Consequently, “we will
reverse only when the evidence is without conflict and leads only to the
conclusion that the defendant was insane when the crime was committed.” Id.
We will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses, and
we will consider the evidence and make all reasonable and logical inferences in
the light most favorable to the verdict. Id. We note that “[o]pinion testimony
from psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental-health experts is central to a
determination of insanity.” Barcroft v. State, 111 N.E.3d 997, 1003 (Ind. 2018).
Their specialized knowledge and training allow them to provide insight and
assist the factfinder in making a sensible and educated determination regarding
the defendant’s mental condition. Id. However, “[e]ven when experts are
unanimous in their opinion, the factfinder may discredit their testimony—or
disregard it altogether—and rely instead on other probative evidence from
which to infer the defendant’s sanity.” Id.
[18] There was not unanimous credible, expert testimony that Belcher did not
appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of these offenses. While
two of the doctors who evaluated Belcher opined that Belcher did not
appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions, Dr. Parker determined to a
reasonable degree of medical certainty that Belcher did appreciate the
wrongfulness of his actions. Dr. Parker noted Belcher’s self-report of marijuana
use. Also, Belcher’s behavior during his interviews with Dr. Parker differed
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 12 of 19 from Belcher’s behavior while in the jail. Belcher became angry with Dr.
Parker during both interviews, accused Dr. Parker of thinking he was lying in
his second interview, and insisted he was hallucinating at the time of the
offenses.
[19] Belcher discounts Dr. Parker’s conclusion and the trial court’s finding that
Belcher was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the offenses because
the only indication of marijuana use on the day of the offenses is Belcher’s self-
report to jail mental health staff when he was returned to the jail from
Logansport State Hospital. Belcher notes that no toxicology test occurred upon
Belcher’s admission to the jail. However, Belcher’s self-report is evidence in the
record from which the trial court could have determined Belcher was under the
influence of marijuana at the time of the offense, and we will not reweigh the
evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. See Barcroft, 111
N.E.3d at 1008 (holding evidence of defendant’s demeanor as well as flaws in
expert opinion testimony and absence of history of mental illness was sufficient
to support inference of sanity).
[20] Belcher told Dr. Callaway that a voice inside his head commanded him to
attack Couch and Smith. However, he did not mention receiving auditory
commands at the time of the offenses to either of the previous two doctors who
evaluated him. Belcher also told each doctor that he had previously been found
not responsible by reason of insanity in another criminal case and suggested the
same result should be reached in the case at bar. On examination by the court,
Dr. Olive acknowledged that some people with schizophrenia will sometimes
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 13 of 19 use their knowledge of the illness to exaggerate their symptoms for their own
perceived benefit. Consequently, the trial court’s decision to discount the
conclusions of Dr. Olive and Dr. Callaway was not unreasonable. See
Thompson, 804 N.E.2d at 1150 (holding evidence supported trial court’s finding
that defendant was guilty but mentally ill despite expert witness opinions that
defendant did not appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions at the time of the
offenses).
[21] Additionally, other evidence in the record suggests Belcher appreciated the
wrongfulness of his actions. He attempted to evade arrest. He walked away
from the responding police officers and had the presence of mind to claim the
IMPD, rather than the State Police, had jurisdiction over Monument Circle.
Belcher also was sufficiently aware of his surroundings to pick vulnerable
victims. He initiated contact with and attacked both Smith and Couch, but
Belcher walked away when other people intervened and confronted him.
Therefore, sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s rejection of Belcher’s
insanity defense. See Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1088 (Ind. Ct. App.
2011) (holding evidence was sufficient to support jury verdict that defendant
was not insane at time of offenses), trans. denied.
2. Abuse of Discretion
[22] Sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we
review such decisions only for an abuse of discretion. Morrell v. State, 118
N.E.3d 793, 796 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), clarified on reh’g on other grounds, 121
N.E.3d 577 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. “An abuse of discretion occurs if Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 14 of 19 the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances.” Allen v. State, 875 N.E.2d 783, 788 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
When a trial court imposes a felony sentence, it is required to issue a sentencing
statement “that includes a reasonably detailed recitation of the trial court’s
reasons for the sentence imposed.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 484-85
(Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g on other grounds, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). If the
court finds aggravating or mitigating circumstances, “the statement must
identify all significant mitigating and aggravating circumstances and explain
why each circumstance has been determined to be mitigating or aggravating.”
Id. at 490. A trial court may abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence by
failing to enter a sentencing statement, identifying aggravating and mitigating
factors the record does not support, omitting reasons clearly supported in the
record and advanced for consideration, or stating reasons for sentence that are
improper as a matter of law. Id. at 490-91.
[23] Belcher argues the trial court’s sentencing statement does not demonstrate
consideration of the mitigating weight attributable to his mental illness. He
argues he lacks the ability to control his behavior because of his mental illness.
He also claims his ability to function is limited as a result of his longstanding
mental illness and argues his illness led him to commit these offenses.
[24] “The trial court is not obligated to accept the defendant’s arguments as to what
constitutes a mitigating factor. Nor is the court required to give the same
weight to proffered mitigating factors as the defendant does.” Comer v. State,
839 N.E.2d 721, 728 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (internal citation and quotation
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 15 of 19 marks omitted), trans. denied. However, when sentencing a guilty but mentally
ill defendant, the trial court “should at a minimum carefully consider on the
record what mitigating weight, if any, to accord to any evidence of mental
illness[.]” Weeks v. State, 697 N.E.2d 28, 30 (Ind. 1998).
[25] The trial court’s sentencing statement indicates it considered Belcher’s mental
health. In fact, the trial court identified Belcher’s mental illness as the “only
mitigator that I could possibly find[.]” (Tr. Vol. III at 84.) It noted that Belcher
failed to take advantage of help that had been offered in the past and explained
“that each and every time [Belcher] is given the opportunity by some court for
rehabilitation through anger control classes, domestic violence classes, any kind
of alternative to simply being locked up that he’s failed. And he’s generally
failed by committing a new offense.” (Id. at 81.) The court also observed that
Belcher’s behavior during trial shows his illness can be managed by medication.
Therefore, the trial court considered Belcher’s mental illness and its implicit
decision not to give his mental illness much mitigating weight was not an abuse
of discretion. See Prowell v. State, 787 N.E.2d 997, 1005 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)
(holding trial court did not abuse its discretion when it considered but assigned
minimal mitigating weight to defendant’s mental illness), trans. denied.
3. Appropriateness of Sentence
[26] We “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of
the trial court’s decision, [we find] 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 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 16 of 19 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).
[27] When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting
point for determining the appropriateness of a sentence. Anglemyer v. State, 868
N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). A
Level 3 felony is punishable by imprisonment for a fixed term between three
years and sixteen years, with an advisory sentence of nine years. Ind. Code §
35-50-2-5. A finding that a defendant is an habitual offender allows the court to
enhance the defendant’s sentence by an additional six to twenty years, Ind.
Code § 35-50-2-8, and the trial court added twenty years to the first of Belcher’s
Level 3 felony sentences. A person convicted of a Class A misdemeanor may
be sentenced to a fixed term of not more than one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2.
Also, the maximum sentence for a Class B misdemeanor is 180 days. Ind.
Code § 35-50-3-3. Fifty-three years and 180 days is the maximum sentence
Belcher could have received. In fact, the trial court observed that Belcher’s
sentence represents “the most time that I can give him.” (Tr. Vol. III at 86.)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 17 of 19 [28] The nature of Belcher’s offenses is particularly troubling. Belcher’s assaults on
Smith and Crouch were unprovoked, violent, and senseless. Belcher attacked
the victims in public and in front of children. The victims were strangers to
Belcher, out-of-town visitors admiring one of Indianapolis’ signature
attractions. The victims sustained severe injuries, with Smith’s injuries
ultimately proving fatal. Crouch temporarily lost consciousness and required
extensive medical care to recover from her injuries. Further, Farah testified to
the emotional impact he suffered as a result of watching Belcher attack Smith,
and Smith’s family and friends highlighted for the court the pain Smith’s loss
caused them. The nature of Belcher’s offenses 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).
[29] “When considering the character of the offender, one relevant fact is the
defendant’s criminal history. The significance of criminal history varies based
on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current
offense.” Maffett v. State, 113 N.E.3d 278, 286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (internal
citation omitted). We note Belcher’s significant criminal history. Prior to the
case at bar, Belcher accumulated four felony and eleven misdemeanor
convictions, some of which were violent crimes. For example, Belcher has
multiple convictions of Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury
and a conviction of Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury.
Thus, we cannot say Belcher’s sentence is inappropriate given his character. See
Shinkle v. State, 129 N.E.3d 212, 217-18 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (holding sentence
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 18 of 19 was not inappropriate and observing that the defendant’s “extensive criminal
history . . . reflects poorly on his character”), trans. denied.
Conclusion [30] Sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s verdict of guilty but mentally ill. It
is undisputed that Belcher suffers from a mental illness. However, there is
sufficient evidence that he appreciated the wrongfulness of his actions. Further,
the trial court did not abuse its discretion at sentencing by considering but
giving little weight to Belcher’s history of mental illness, and we cannot say that
Belcher’s sentence is inappropriate given the nature of his offenses and his
character. Consequently, we affirm the trial court.
[31] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Bailey, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 19 of 19