Amber Cochran v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 12 2016, 9:58 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
Gregory L. Fumarolo Gregory F. Zoeller
Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Richard C. Webster
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Amber Cochran, August 12, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
02A03-1512-CR-2218
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable John F. Surbeck,
Appellee-Plaintiff Jr., Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
02D06-1504-F3-31
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1512-CR-2218 | August 12, 2016 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary
[1] Following a guilty plea, Amber Cochran appeals her eighteen-year sentence for
two counts of level 3 felony neglect of a dependent. She argues that her
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and her character.
Concluding that she has not met her burden to show that her sentence is
inappropriate, we affirm.
Fact and Procedural History 1
[2] In January 2015, Cochran took her son C.R., who was born in March 2011, for
a weekend visitation with his father. C.R.’s father noticed that C.R. was
covered in bruises and that some of his hair had been pulled out. Cochran told
C.R.’s father that the injuries were caused by building blocks falling on C.R.
and that Michael Holloway, Cochran’s live-in boyfriend, had picked up C.R. by
his hair.
[3] C.R.’s father contacted the police to report C.R.’s injuries. A police officer
came to the home and observed multiple bruises and injuries on C.R. The
police officer contacted the Allen County Department of Child Services
(“DCS”) to report the observations. The same evening, DCS sent a case
manager to Cochran’s motel residence to check out her other son, J.S., who
was born in December 2012. The case manager observed severe injuries on
1
The factual basis for Cochran’s guilty plea is brief and lacks detail. Cochran did not object to the accuracy
of the presentence investigation report at her sentencing hearing and relied on that report, the probable cause
affidavit, and other documents in drafting her appellate brief. We have done likewise.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1512-CR-2218 | August 12, 2016 Page 2 of 8
J.S., and he was taken to the hospital for treatment. C.R. was also taken to the
hospital for treatment.
[4] In February 2015, Cochran and Holloway were interviewed by Detective
Kenneth Johnson. Cochran and Holloway worked at the same gas station.
During the day, Holloway would watch C.R. and J.S. while Cochran was at
work, and Cochran would watch the children while Holloway worked at night.
Holloway stated that C.R. received his injuries when a tent collapsed on him on
January 27, 2015. Holloway claimed that he was unaware that C.R. was
injured or bruised and denied pulling his hair. Holloway stated that J.S.
received his injuries when he fell down the steps. He stated that J.S. did not cry
or appear injured and that he did not observe any injuries on J.S. until January
30, 2015. Holloway did not take C.R. or J.S. to the hospital for medical
treatment.
[5] Cochran claimed that she was unaware of the scrapes and bruises on C.R. She
also claimed that Holloway told her that the injuries were caused by a tent
falling on C.R. Cochran also stated that C.R. and J.S. were very rough with
each other. Cochran did not seek medical attention for C.R. or J.S.
[6] Forensic interviewer Lorrie Bandor from the Dr. Bill Lewis Center for Children
interviewed C.R., who said that he and J.S. got into “the medicine” and
Holloway became angry. Appellant’s App. at 115. C.R. stated that Holloway
put him upside down, pulled his hair out, and “whooped” him on the butt with
a belt. Id. C.R. said that Cochran was present when this incident occurred and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1512-CR-2218 | August 12, 2016 Page 3 of 8
that she told Holloway not to pull his hair. C.R. said that Holloway did the
same things to J.S., but that J.S. did not have any clothes on when Holloway
“whooped” him. Id. C.R. said that he knew that J.S. was hurt because his hair
and eyes were red. When J.S. was interviewed, he indicated that Holloway
gave him “ouchies” on the top of his head, groin area, and right foot. Id.
[7] The medical examinations revealed that C.R. had bruises on the right side of
his face, a large hematoma on the back of his head, missing hair and bruises on
the back of his head, and abrasions on the front and back of his body. J.S. had
bruising around both eyes, a patch of hair missing from his scalp, bruising
throughout his lower abdomen and just above the pubic area, and bruising
throughout his body, including both arms, both legs, his neck, and his lower
back. J.S. also suffered from anemia due to blood loss from the pulling out of
his hair.
[8] In April 2015, the State charged Cochran with two counts of level 3 felony
neglect of a dependent. The charging informations alleged that Cochran,
having the care of the children, knowingly or intentionally placed them in a
situation endangering their lives or health, resulting in serious bodily injury to
them. In September 2015, Cochran pled guilty to both counts without a plea
agreement. The trial court sentenced Cochran to nine years of imprisonment on
each count, with five years executed, four years suspended, and two years of
supervised probation, and ordered that the sentences be served consecutively.
Cochran now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1512-CR-2218 | August 12, 2016 Page 4 of 8
Discussion and Decision
[9] Cochran invites this Court to reduce her sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate
Rule 7(B), which provides that we may revise a sentence authorized by statute
if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find that the sentence
“is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender.” The defendant bears the burden to persuade this Court that his or
her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind.
2006). “When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence under Rule 7(B), we
may consider all aspects of the penal consequences imposed by the trial court in
sentencing the defendant, including whether a portion of the sentence was
suspended.” Weedman v. State, 21 N.E.3d 873, 894 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans.
denied (2015). “[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).
“[A]ppellate review 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. at 1225. “The question under Appellate
Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the
question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894
N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
[10] Regarding the nature of the offense, “the advisory sentence is the starting point
the Legislature selected as appropriate for the crime committed.” Fuller v. State,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1512-CR-2218 | August 12, 2016 Page 5 of 8
9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014). Cochran pled guilty to two counts of level 3
felony neglect of a dependent. The sentencing range for a level 3 felony is
between three and sixteen years, with an advisory sentence of nine years. Ind.
Code § 35-50-2-5(b). Cochran received the advisory sentence of nine years of
imprisonment for each conviction, with five years executed, four years
suspended, and two years of supervised probation, and the trial court ordered
the sentences to be served consecutively. To the extent Cochran argues that
consecutive sentences are inappropriate here, we disagree: “[c]onsecutive
sentences reflect the significance of multiple victims.” Pittman v. State, 885
N.E.2d 1246, 1259 (Ind. 2008).
[11] Cochran contends that her sentence is inappropriate because her offenses were
less heinous than Holloway’s, who was convicted of two counts of level 3
felony battery and received a sentence of sixteen years with ten years executed
and six years suspended. Cochran concedes that she placed her children in
danger and deserves to be punished, but not more than Holloway because she
believes that he is the one responsible for inflicting the injuries. The fact
remains that Cochran had both a legal and a moral obligation to protect her
young children from her boyfriend. She saw him inflict some of their injuries
and then failed to seek medical attention for them. Cochran minimizes her
complicity in the abuse and ignores the fact that she will not spend any more
time in prison than Holloway will. The nature of Cochran’s offenses does not
render her sentence inappropriate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1512-CR-2218 | August 12, 2016 Page 6 of 8
[12] Regarding her character, Cochran repeatedly attempted to avoid responsibility
for the boys’ injuries by claiming that they were caused by falling building
blocks or being rough with each other, although she was present during the
abuse. The photographs of the boys’ injuries revealed that C.R. and J.S. were
seriously injured and needed medical attention. Cochran chose to ignore the
needs of her children, which demonstrates a troubling lack of concern.
[13] Cochran also contends that her guilty plea reflects positively upon her character
because she accepted responsibility for her actions without a plea agreement.
We disagree. Cochran was charged in April and did not plead guilty until
September. Although she pled guilty, Cochran believes that she was wrongfully
accused because Holloway was responsible for the boys’ injuries. Cochran fails
to realize that she is equally culpable because she failed to prevent or report the
abuse. Also, Cochran never expressed remorse for the harm that came to the
boys or for her failure to provide care, which indicates that her guilty plea was
purely pragmatic.
[14] Cochran points out that she has no criminal history other than misdemeanor
convictions for marijuana and alcohol possession. Also, she contends that she
was employed before and after the offenses, is at low risk to reoffend, and
would have been acceptable for home detention. Although these factors are
laudable, they do not override Cochran’s significant betrayal of trust and lack of
remorse for her role in the abuse suffered by her young children. In sum,
Cochran has not shown that the sentence imposed by the trial court is
inappropriate, and therefore we affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1512-CR-2218 | August 12, 2016 Page 7 of 8
[15] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1512-CR-2218 | August 12, 2016 Page 8 of 8