Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-762 | August 18, 2020 Page 1 of 7

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Kristin A. Mulholland

Appellate Public Defender

Crown Point, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General

Ellen H. Meilaender

Supervising Deputy Attorney 

General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Timothy Franklin Jackson,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

August 18, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-762

Appeal from the

Lake Superior Court

The Honorable 

Diane Ross Boswell, Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

45G03-1802-F3-8

45G03-1606-F2-16

Vaidik, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-762 | August 18, 2020 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] Timothy Franklin Jackson contends that his thirteen-year sentence for Level 3 

felony armed robbery and Level 5 felony burglary is inappropriate. We disagree 

and affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Around 11:30 p.m. on April 11, 2016, seventeen-year-old Jackson broke into 

the Gary home of an elderly couple fostering his child,

1 pointed a gun at them, 

and demanded to know where the child was. The woman directed Jackson to 

the child, and Jackson left the house with the child. The next day, police 

officers found the child unharmed.

[3] In June 2016, the State charged Jackson with Level 2 felony burglary, Level 3 

felony kidnapping, and Level 6 felony kidnapping in Cause No. 45G03-1606-

F2-16 (“F2-16”).

2 When police went to arrest Jackson on the warrant in F2-16, 

Jackson fled and was charged with resisting law enforcement in another cause 

number. See Cause No. 45G03-1705-CM-14. Jackson was initially released on 

electronic monitoring in F2-16 but removed his GPS bracelet in August 2016.

Jackson was taken back into custody but later released on bond on February 6, 

2018. See Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 7, 54.

1 The child was approximately fifteen months old at the time.

2 This case was a direct file in Lake Superior Court. See Tr. p. 29.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-762 | August 18, 2020 Page 3 of 7

[4] About two weeks later, on February 22, 2018, Jackson, who by then was 

eighteen years old, approached a man getting into his car in East Chicago and 

told him to give him everything he had. When the man tried to push Jackson 

away, Jackson pulled out a handgun and ordered the man to slide into the 

passenger seat. Jackson then drove around with the man for several minutes, 

stopped the car in an alley, and ordered the man to take off his shoes and shirt 

and get out of the car. 

[5] Later that month, the State charged Jackson with Level 3 felony armed robbery, 

Level 3 felony kidnapping, Level 6 felony auto theft, and Level 6 felony theft in 

Cause No. 45G03-1802-F3-8 (“F3-8”). A warrant was issued for Jackson’s 

arrest; however, he wasn’t arrested on the warrant until a year later, in February 

2019.

[6] Meanwhile, in April 2018, Jackson was arrested in Tippecanoe County for 

several offenses. See Cause No. 79D02-1804-F2-9. A jury convicted Jackson of 

Level 5 felony robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to five years. 

[7] In January 2020, Jackson and the State entered into a plea agreement under 

which Jackson agreed to plead guilty to an amended charge of Level 5 felony

burglary in F2-16 and Level 3 felony armed robbery in F3-8 and the State 

agreed to dismiss the remaining charges in F2-16 and F3-8 and the resistinglaw-enforcement charge. Sentencing was left open to the trial court.

[8] At the guilty-plea hearing, the parties submitted stipulations of the facts above.

At the sentencing hearing, Jackson, who by then was twenty years old, testified 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-762 | August 18, 2020 Page 4 of 7

that he was “sorry” for “taking [the victims] through. . . what they had to go 

through.” Tr. p. 36. The woman who fostered Jackson’s child testified about the

“fear” and “trauma” she and her husband experienced and compared the 

incident to a television show. Id. at 27. The State noted that Jackson had been 

arrested thirteen times, nine times as a juvenile. In addition, Jackson had at 

least two juvenile adjudications and the 2018 felony robbery conviction in 

Tippecanoe County. Defense counsel, who conceded that Jackson did not have 

a good record considering his young age, asked the trial court to impose the 

advisory sentence of three years for the Level 5 felony and the advisory 

sentence of nine years for the Level 3 felony. Id. at 35. Defense counsel did not 

address whether the sentences should be served concurrently or consecutively. 

Defense counsel also asked the court to consider a “split sentence,” meaning 

that after serving a period of time in the Department of Correction Jackson

would serve the rest on community corrections or probation. Id. at 36. The 

State asked the trial court to sentence Jackson to four years for the Level 5 

felony and twelve years for the Level 3 felony, to be served consecutively. Id. at 

33. The trial court found no mitigators and one aggravator, Jackson’s juvenile

record. As the court explained:

He needs some help but I don’t think this Court has anything to 

offer him at this point. I mean, he -- he wants to make a change 

in his life, so he says, but I don’t think there’s any program, any 

facility that we can -- you know, if he were over in juvenile court, 

they got all kinds of things they can do over there. We don’t have 

those things here. The things that we do offer can’t address where 

he is.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-762 | August 18, 2020 Page 5 of 7

I mean, he’s at -- he’s at a terrorist position, going in somebody’s 

house, kicking in their door with guns, taking out the babies, 

robbing people of their stuff. I mean -- and you’re right, at his

age, I don’t want to see him in DOC, but I don’t have -- I don’t 

have any other options here. I really don’t.

Id. at 39. The court imposed consecutive sentences of four years in F2-16 and 

nine years in F3-8, for a total sentence of thirteen years, to be served in the 

DOC. The court recommended Jackson for Purposeful Incarceration and said it 

would consider a sentence modification if Jackson successfully completed the 

program.

[9] Jackson now appeals his sentence.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Jackson contends that his thirteen-year total sentence for F2-16 and F3-8 is 

inappropriate and asks us to revise it under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which 

provides that an appellate court “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.” “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) (citing Cardwell 

v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008)). Because we generally defer to the 

judgment of trial courts in sentencing matters, defendants must persuade us that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-762 | August 18, 2020 Page 6 of 7

their sentences are inappropriate. Schaaf v. State, 54 N.E.3d 1041, 1044-45 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2016).

[11] We first note that Jackson doesn’t argue that his sentences should be served 

concurrently. Indeed, they cannot. According to Indiana Code section 35-50-1-

2(e), if, after being arrested for one crime, a person commits another crime

while the person is released on bond, “the terms of imprisonment for the crimes 

shall be served consecutively, regardless of the order in which the crimes are 

tried and sentences are imposed.” Here, after Jackson was released on bond in 

F2-16, he committed the offense in F3-8. The trial court sentenced Jackson to 

four years—one year above the advisory term—in F2-16, see Ind. Code § 35-50-

2-6, and the advisory term of nine years in F3-8, see Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.

[12] Jackson claims that the nature of the offenses supports a reduction in his 

sentence because “no one was physically hurt in the commission of the

offenses.” Appellant’s Br. p. 12. While no one may have been “physically” 

hurt, the victims undoubtedly experienced emotional trauma. In the first case, 

Jackson broke into the home of an elderly couple late at night, pointed a gun at 

them, and took the child they were fostering. In the second case, Jackson

ordered a man into his car at gun point, drove around with the man, and then 

forced the man to remove some of his clothing and get out of the car.

[13] Jackson also claims that his character supports a reduction in his sentence 

because he was only seventeen years old when he committed the first offense

and eighteen when he committed the second, he pled guilty, and he expressed 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-762 | August 18, 2020 Page 7 of 7

remorse. It is true that Jackson was young when he committed the offenses. But 

Jackson had numerous contacts with the juvenile-justice system before the 

events in this case yet continued to engage in criminal behavior. After Jackson 

was charged in F2-16, he was released on electronic monitoring. However, he 

removed his GPS bracelet. He was taken back into custody and later released 

on bond. A mere two weeks later, Jackson committed the offense in F3-8. And 

while these cases were pending, Jackson was arrested in Tippecanoe County,

convicted of Level 5 felony robbery, and sentenced to five years. Although 

Jackson said he was “sorry” and pled guilty, the State dismissed several 

charges, including a Level 2 felony in F2-16 and the resisting-law-enforcement 

charge. 

[14] Given the serious nature of the offenses and Jackson’s escalating criminal 

behavior, Jackson has failed to persuade us that the four-year sentence (one 

year above the advisory) in F2-16 and the advisory sentence of nine years in F3-

8 are inappropriate. We therefore affirm Jackson’s thirteen-year sentence.3 

[15] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Baker, Sr.J., concur.

3

In his reply brief, Jackson argues that the State included “facts” in its statement of facts and argument that 

were not included in the stipulated factual basis for each cause number. Jackson cites page numbers of the 

State’s brief but does not identify these “facts.” See Appellant’s Reply Br. p. 5. Regardless, we only 

considered the facts of the offenses from the stipulated factual basis for each cause number.