MEMORANDUM DECISION
Case Summary
[1] Octavius Morris pled guilty to Level 5 felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a public safety official on May 12, 2021. The trial court sentenced Morris to four years of incarceration. Morris appeals, arguing that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On January 5, 2019, Morris was incarcerated at Miami Correctional Facility, which, at some point that day, was on lockdown status. (Appellants App. Vol. II p. 27) During the lockdown, Morris attempted to access a GTL kiosk
1
, which was restricted due to the lockdown. (Appellants App. Vol. II p. 27) Correctional Officer Francis Dale ordered Morris to return to his cell multiple times and get off the kiosk, but Morris refused. (Appellants App. Vol. II p. 27) Morris then struck Officer Dale repeatedly, causing Officer Dale to suffer bruising and swelling. (Appellants App. Vol. II p. 40)
[3] Morris was charged with and pled guilty to Level 5 felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a public-safety official. The trial court held a sentencing hearing on November 17, 2021. At the hearing, the trial court heard evidence regarding Morriss acceptance of responsibility, character, and mental-health issues. (Tr. Vol. II pp. 66–67) The State presented evidence concerning Morriss criminal history and a pending criminal charge for Level 6 battery resulting in bodily injury. (Tr. Vol. II p. 67) The trial court sentenced Morris to four years of incarceration. (Tr. Vol. II p. 67)
Discussion and Decision
[4] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial courts decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” “[W]hether we regard a sentence as appropriate at the end of the day 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.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). In addition to the “due consideration” we are required to give to the trial courts sentencing decision, “we understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.” Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The defendant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Sanchez v. State, 891 N.E.2d 174, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). As mentioned, Morris received a four-year sentence, which is one year more than the advisory three-year sentence for a Level 5 felony. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6.
[5] The nature of Morriss offense does not support a reduction of his sentence. Morris struck Officer Dale multiple times, causing bruising and swelling, after being ordered several times to return to his cell. Though Morris argues that the trial court inappropriately punished him for his mental-health issues, the record does not support this contention. In fact, the trial court acknowledged that Morriss “mental health conditions” were a mitigating circumstance. Tr. Vol. II p. 67.
[6] Likewise, Morriss character does not support a sentence reduction. Morris argues that his sentence is unsupported in light of his character because he accepted responsibility and his family and friends testified to his good character. It is true that the trial court acknowledged as mitigating circumstances that Morris had accepted responsibility and had been “making improvements.” Tr. Vol. II p. 66. The trial court, however, also noted that Morris had four prior felony convictions and three prior misdemeanor convictions. “When considering the character of the offender, one relevant fact is the appellants criminal history. The significance of criminal history in assessing a defendants character varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation the current offense.” George v. State, 141 N.E.3d 68, 74 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (citations omitted). Further, Morris received an additional charge of Level 6 battery resulting in bodily injury while awaiting sentencing, evidence that he had not been deterred from unlawful conduct. See Field v. State, 843 N.E.2d 1008, 1013 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (holding sentence was not inappropriate where “prior attempts to rehabilitate [the defendant] and deter him from future unlawful conduct have failed.”). In light of the nature of his offense and his character, Morris has failed to persuade us that his four-year sentence is inappropriately harsh.
[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Morris testified that he had been attempting to use the GTL kiosk, which was likely a computer station of some kind, to access a photograph of his daughter. Morris testified that he had wanted to access the photo because viewing the photo of his daughter was a “coping skill,” he used in periods of mental distress. Tr. Vol. II p. 50.
Bradford, Chief Judge.
Najam, J., and Bailey, J., concur.