Kaylin M. Reynolds v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 7, 2017
• Docket: 46A03-1609-CR-2139
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 07 2017, 5:44 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Craig V. Braje Curtis T. Hill, Jr. David K. Payne Attorney General of Indiana Braje, Nelson & Janes, LLP Jodi Kathryn Stein Michigan City, Indiana Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kaylin M. Reynolds, June 7, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 46A03-1609-CR-2139 v. Appeal from the LaPorte Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Thomas Alevizos, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 46C01-1511-F3-990

Robb, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1609-CR-2139 | June 7, 2017 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary and Issue [1] Kaylin Reynolds pleaded guilty to neglect of a dependent resulting in serious

bodily injury, a Level 3 felony, and was sentenced to twelve years in the

Indiana Department of Correction. Reynolds appeals her sentence, contending

it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and her character.

Concluding her sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On November 7, 2015, twenty-year-old Reynolds and her boyfriend, Coty

Sobolewski, were taking care of fourteen-month-old J.H. In their care, J.H.

sustained third-degree burns over her lower torso, legs, and genital area.

Reynolds and Sobolewski were immediately aware of J.H.’s injuries but did not

seek medical treatment. Reynolds attempted to apply cream to J.H.’s legs to

relieve the extreme pain.

[3] Three days later, Reynolds and Sobolewski sought the advice of their neighbor,

Lola Evans. Evans instructed them to immediately call 911 as J.H.’s breathing

was labored, her eyes were fixed, and she was drooling. Reynolds turned to

Sobolewski and said, “no, what if they think we hurt the baby or got the baby

high.” Transcript, Volume II at 23. After Evans threatened to call 911,

Reynolds decided to take J.H. to the hospital.

[4] At the hospital, J.H. was sedated, placed on a ventilator, and transported to the

burn unit at Loyola Medical Center in Chicago. J.H. also suffered from a blood

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1609-CR-2139 | June 7, 2017 Page 2 of 5 infection and remained in the hospital for two months. J.H. suffered extreme

pain and her father has to apply medication to her legs twice daily to mitigate

any permanent scarring.

[5] The State charged Reynolds with neglect of a dependent resulting in serious

bodily injury, a Level 3 felony. On March 4, 2016, Reynolds pleaded guilty as

charged. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court noted the following

aggravating circumstances: 1) the victim was less than two years of age, 2)

Reynolds had a prior criminal history, and 3) Reynolds showed a lack of

remorse by attempting to place blame on Sobolewski. The only mitigating

circumstance found by the trial court was Reynolds’ plea of guilty. The trial

court sentenced Reynolds to twelve years in Department of Correction.

Reynolds now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [6] Reynolds contends her twelve-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the

nature of her offense and her character. Indiana Rule of Appellate Procedure

7(B) gives appellate courts the authority to revise a defendant’s sentence if,

“after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds 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

his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080

(Ind. 2006). “[S]entencing is principally a discretionary function in which the

trial court’s judgment should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1609-CR-2139 | June 7, 2017 Page 3 of 5 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008). It is not for the reviewing court “to achieve

a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case,” but “[t]he principal role of appellate

review should be to attempt to leaven the outliers.” Id. at 1225. Whether we

regard a sentence as inappropriate turns on “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. at 1224.

[7] The advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an

appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d

482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). Reynolds

pleaded guilty to neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury as a

Level 3 felony. See Ind. Code § 35-46-1-4(b)(2). The statutory sentencing range

for a Level 3 felony is three to sixteen years, with an advisory sentence of nine

years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5(b). Based upon its identification of several

aggravating factors, the trial court imposed a twelve-year sentence.

[8] As to the nature of the offense, Reynolds was placed in a position of trust and

care of a fourteen-month-old child. In her care, J.H. sustained third-degree

burns on approximately 23% of her body that went untreated for three days,

despite Reynolds’ awareness of the severity of the burns. When told that J.H.

needed immediate medical care, Reynolds first expressed her concern about

whether she would be found at fault and whether anyone would think she “got

[J.H.] high.” Tr., Vol. II at 23. In addition, J.H. has permanent scarring and

may have to have surgery on her legs.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1609-CR-2139 | June 7, 2017 Page 4 of 5 [9] As to Reynolds’ character, the trial court noted this is Reynolds’ second offense

against a child in her young life. In 2010, Reynolds was adjudicated a

delinquent for child molesting. Reynolds also has a conviction for conversion.

Aside from her limited, but significant criminal history, Reynolds’ reaction to

these events speak volumes. As noted above, Reynolds’ first reaction to being

informed J.H. needed medical care was concern for herself and whether she

would be deemed at fault or potentially be in trouble for drug use. Nothing

about Reynolds’ character persuades us her sentence requires revision.

Conclusion [10] Reynolds’ sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of her offense and

her character, and we therefore affirm her sentence.

[11] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Bailey, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1609-CR-2139 | June 7, 2017 Page 5 of 5