Scott A. Edwards v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 14 2020, 7:49 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
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn, Indiana
Sierra A. Murray
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Scott A. Edwards, April 14, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-2216
v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Sarah K. Mullican,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
84D03-1901-F3-304
Mathias, Judge.
[1] Scott A. Edwards pleaded guilty in Vigo Superior Court to Level 3 felony
aggravated battery and Level 3 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2216 | April 14, 2020 Page 1 of 7
serious bodily injury. The trial court sentenced Edwards to an aggregate
sentence of twenty-eight years. Edwards appeals and argues that his sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] During the time relevant to this appeal, Edwards was in a relationship with
Holly Cota, who had a fourteen-month-old son, C.B.C. On January 14, 2019,
Cota left C.B.C. in Edwards’s care while she went to work. While in Edwards’s
care, C.D.C. suffered a serious injury to his scrotum, causing severe swelling
and bruising. Cota again left C.D.C. in Edwards’s care the following day.
Edwards then cut C.D.C.’s tongue, resulting in a vertical slit that went
completely through the tongue, causing severe pain. When she returned home
and saw C.D.C.’s tongue, Cota took him to the office of Dr. Daniel Kellar, who
observed extensive injuries on the child; in addition to a bruised and swollen
scrotum and split tongue, C.D.C. had bruises on his face and body, some of
which were inflicted within the past day. Dr. Kellar later stated that C.D.C.’s
injuries were the most extensive he had seen in twenty-six years of practicing
family medicine.
[4] C.D.C. was taken to the emergency room at the local hospital, then transferred
to Riley Children’s Hospital in Indianapolis. At Riley, he underwent surgery to
repair the injury to his tongue. As a result of the injury, C.D.C.’s tongue is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2216 | April 14, 2020 Page 2 of 7
scarred. Because of the injury, his speech may be impaired, and he is currently
enrolled in speech therapy.
[5] On January 24, 2019, the State charged Edwards with Level 3 felony
aggravated battery, Level 3 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury to a
person under the age of fourteen, and Level 3 felony neglect of a dependent
resulting in serious bodily injury. The State subsequently amended the charging
information so that it charged Edwards with Level 3 felony aggravated battery
and Level 3 neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury.
[6] On May 29, 2019, Edwards entered into a plea agreement with the State in
which he agreed to plead guilty as charged. The trial court held a guilty plea
hearing on the following day and took the plea under advisement. Edwards
moved to withdraw his plea on August 22, and the trial court held a hearing on
this motion on August 26. The trial court denied the motion and proceeded to
sentencing.
[7] At the sentencing hearing, Dr. Kellar testified that the injury to C.D.C.’s tongue
was non-accidental and had to have been intentionally inflicted. He also
testified that it was highly unlikely the injury to C.D.C.’s scrotum was caused
by accident. Specifically, Dr. Kellar testified that C.D.C. would have to have
fallen from a significant height and landed with significant force, with his legs
apart, on a hard object. Falling from a crib onto a toybox, as Cota claimed,
would not have caused C.D.C.’s injuries.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2216 | April 14, 2020 Page 3 of 7
[8] At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court found as mitigating
that Edwards, as a young child, had witnessed the murder of his father, suffered
from PTSD, and suffered from anxiety and depression. The trial court found as
aggravating that Edwards had a criminal history, albeit relatively minor; that
Edwards was on probation at the time he committed the instant offenses; that
the victim was less than two years of age; and the nature and extent of C.D.C.’s
injuries. The trial court determined that the aggravating factors outweighed the
mitigating factors and sentenced Edwards to consecutive terms of fourteen
years of incarceration on each count for an aggregate term of twenty-eight years
of incarceration. Edwards now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[9] Edwards argues that his twenty-eight-year sentence is inappropriate. Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that the court on appeal “may revise a sentence
authorized by statute 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.” Still, we must exercise deference to a trial
court’s sentencing decision, because Rule 7(B) requires us to give due
consideration to that decision and because we understand and recognize the
unique perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions. Trainor v.
State, 950 N.E.2d 352, 355–56 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. Thus,
although we have the power to review and revise sentences, the principal role of
appellate review should be to attempt to “leaven the outliers, and identify some
guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2216 | April 14, 2020 Page 4 of 7
sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.”
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008).
[10] Our review under Rule 7(B) should focus on “the forest—the aggregate
sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts,
or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Id. Whether we regard a
sentence as 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.” Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d
1134, 1145 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224).
[11] Our review under Appellate Rule 7(B) is also “very deferential to the trial
court.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). “Such deference 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). The appropriate question is not whether another sentence is more
appropriate, but whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. Rose v. State, 36
N.E.3d 1055, 1063 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). It is the defendant’s burden on appeal
to persuade us that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate.
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
[12] Here, Edwards was convicted of two Level 3 felonies. The sentencing range for
a Level 3 felony is three to sixteen years, with an advisory sentence of nine
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2216 | April 14, 2020 Page 5 of 7
years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5(b). Thus, Edwards faced a maximum sentence of
thirty-two years.1 His twenty-eight-year sentence is more than the advisory but
less than the maximum. Considering both the nature of Edwards’s offense and
his character, we cannot say that this sentence is inappropriate.
[13] The nature of Edwards’s offenses is truly heinous. A fourteen-month-old child
was placed in Edwards’s care, and he abused this position of care in an
unthinkable way. Edwards inflicted horrific injuries on C.D.C.: C.D.C.’s
tongue was vertically split through, causing him severe pain and difficulty
eating and drinking. His speech impairment may be permanent. C.D.C.’s
scrotum was severely injured, bruised, and swollen. This also caused the child
severe pain, but, thankfully, no permanent injury. C.D.C. has shown signs of
psychological trauma as a result of the injuries he suffered. To put it bluntly,
there is nothing about the nature of Edwards’s offenses that persuades us that
his sentence is inappropriate. To the contrary, the nature of the offenses alone is
sufficient to justify Edwards’s twenty-eight-year sentence.
[14] Turning to Edwards’s character, there is also nothing that convinces us that his
sentence is inappropriate. Although he appears to have had a difficult
childhood, this does not justify his behavior. And although he pleaded guilty,
he denied culpability at the sentencing hearing. Edwards was also not entirely
truthful regarding his prior criminal history. He told the trial court at the
1
The limitations imposed on consecutive sentences arising out of a single episode of criminal conduct are
inapplicable to Edwards because aggravated battery is a “crime of violence.” See Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(a)(7).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2216 | April 14, 2020 Page 6 of 7
sentencing hearing that he had never been “in trouble” before. Tr. p. 89. But the
pre-sentence investigation report revealed that he had prior convictions for
operating a vehicle while intoxicated and criminal mischief. Edwards was on
probation for the latter offense when he committed the instant offenses.
Although Edwards’s prior criminal history is minor, it does not reflect well on
his character.
Conclusion
[15] Giving due consideration to the trial court’s sentencing decision, we are unable
to conclude that Edward’s twenty-eight-year sentence is inappropriate in light of
the brutal nature of Edwards’s offenses or his character. We therefore affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
[16] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Bailey, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2216 | April 14, 2020 Page 7 of 7