Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2619 | August 14, 2019 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

Jane Ann Noblitt

Columbus, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Josiah J. Swinney

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Perry K. Davis,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

August 14, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2619

Appeal from the Bartholomew

Superior Court

The Honorable James D. Worton, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

03D01-1804-F3-2294

Tavitas, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2619 | August 14, 2019 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] Perry Davis appeals his sentences for robbery, a Level 5 felony, and criminal 

confinement, a Level 5 felony. We affirm.

Issue

[2] Davis raises one issue, which we restate as whether his sentences are 

inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character.

Facts

[3] In October 2017, W.M. agreed to work as a confidential informant in 

Bartholomew County. On April 19, 2018, W.M. ran into her friend, Davis. As 

they were walking, Davis led W.M. toward an apartment where Davis’ brother, 

Randy Wilson, and Willowdale “Ann” Bennett were located. When they 

arrived, Wilson was on a speakerphone with Chrissy Coatsworth, who accused

W.M. of being a confidential informant. Davis took W.M.’s purse, dumped the 

contents out, and searched the purse. Davis also told W.M. that she was going 

to be scalped. Coatsworth heard Wilson say that he was going to “shave”

W.M.’s head. Tr. Vol. II p. 139. Wilson also accused W.M. of being a 

confidential informant and punched W.M. in the face. W.M. fell and was 

dazed from Wilson’s punch.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2619 | August 14, 2019 Page 3 of 7

[4] W.M. thought she saw Davis holding a gun.1 Wilson picked up cable wires to 

bind W.M., but someone knocked on the door. Wilson and Davis went outside

to talk to the person, leaving W.M. inside with Bennett. W.M. saw her cell 

phone on the counter and tried to grab it. Bennett pushed W.M. down and 

slapped her, and they wrestled for W.M.’s phone. W.M. threw the phone and 

ran for the door. As W.M. ran out the door, someone grabbed her hair, and she 

fell to the ground. W.M. was screaming and halfway out the door, and 

someone was trying to pull her inside by her hair. A neighbor saw the activity, 

and Davis said, “the neighbor[’]s out[.] [L]et her go. . . .” Id. at 69. They 

released W.M., and she ran away. W.M. had a “gash” on the top of her head 

that required staples, a black eye, scrapes and cuts, and missing hair. Id. at 71. 

[5] The State charged Davis with robbery resulting in bodily injury, a Level 3 

felony; criminal confinement resulting in bodily injury, a Level 5 felony; battery 

resulting in moderate bodily injury, a Level 6 felony; and theft, a Class A 

misdemeanor. A jury found Davis guilty of robbery, a Level 5 felony; criminal 

confinement, a Level 5 felony; battery, a Class A misdemeanor; and theft, a 

Class A misdemeanor. The trial court vacated the battery and theft convictions

due to double jeopardy concerns. 

[6] At sentencing, the trial court found no mitigating circumstances. The trial court 

found the following aggravating circumstances: (1) Davis’ history of criminal or 

 

1 A realistic-looking pellet gun was later found at the house. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2619 | August 14, 2019 Page 4 of 7

delinquent behavior; (2) Davis recently violated the conditions of probation, 

parole, community corrections placement, or pretrial release granted to him; (3) 

Davis had the opportunity for treatment and was unsuccessful; (4) Davis was 

placed on probation multiple times and “had multiple petitions to revoke 

probation filed against him;” and (5) the harm, injury, loss, or damage suffered 

by the victim was “significant and greater than the elements necessary to prove 

the commission of the offense.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 154. The trial 

court then sentenced Davis to consecutive sentences of five years for the 

robbery conviction and four years for the criminal confinement conviction, for 

an aggregate sentence of nine years. 

Analysis

[7] Davis contends that his sentence is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) 

provides that this court 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. Wilson v. State, 966 N.E.2d 1259, 1266 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2012) (citing Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)), trans. denied. 

[8] In Indiana, trial courts can tailor an appropriate sentence to the circumstances 

presented; the trial court’s judgment receives “considerable deference.” Sanders 

v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 

N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008)), trans. denied. In conducting our review, we do 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2619 | August 14, 2019 Page 5 of 7

not look to see whether the defendant’s sentence is appropriate or “if another 

sentence might be more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence 

imposed is inappropriate.” Sanders, 71 N.E.3d at 844 (citing King v. State, 894 

N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)). When determining whether a sentence 

is inappropriate, the advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has 

selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Childress, 848 

N.E.2d at 1081.

[9] Here, Davis was convicted of two Level 5 felonies. The sentencing range for a 

Level 5 felony is one to six years, with an advisory sentence of three years. See

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6. The trial court sentenced Davis to five years for robbery, 

a Level 5 felony, and four years for criminal confinement, a Level 5 felony, 

with the sentences to be served consecutively for an aggregate sentence of nine 

years. 

[10] Regarding the nature of the offenses, Davis, his brother, and another woman

robbed, beat, and confined W.M. because they thought she acted as a 

confidential informant against someone else. During the incident, Davis 

threatened to scalp W.M. W.M. escaped only when a neighbor heard her 

screaming and saw the attack. As a result of the attack, W.M. had a “gash” on 

the top of her head that required staples, a black eye, scrapes and cuts, and 

missing hair. Tr. Vol. II p. 71. In the presentence investigation, Davis claimed 

to have been in the “wrong place at the wrong time” and denied battering 

W.M. but conceded that he “did not do anything to help her.” Appellant’s 

App. Vol. III p. 9. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2619 | August 14, 2019 Page 6 of 7

[11] As to Davis’ character, twenty-two-year-old Davis argues that we should revise 

his sentence because: (1) he apologized and assumed responsibility for his 

actions; (2) he requested drug treatment: (3) he participated in programs at the 

jail; (4) he has a family history of abuse and drug addiction; and (5) he has a

minimal criminal history. At his sentencing hearing, Davis downplayed his 

criminal history. The record, however, reveals that, as a juvenile, Davis

participated in an informal adjustment in 2010 for an act that would have been 

battery if committed by an adult, a Class A misdemeanor. In 2013, Davis was 

adjudicated a delinquent for battery resulting in bodily injury, a Class A 

misdemeanor, and for resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor. As 

an adult, Davis has a 2014 conviction for domestic battery, a Class A 

misdemeanor; a 2017 conviction for possession of marijuana, a Class B 

misdemeanor; and a 2017 conviction for battery resulting in bodily injury, a 

Class A misdemeanor. At the time of the instant offense, he was on probation 

for the battery and possession of marijuana convictions. In his presentence 

investigation, Davis admitted to regular use of marijuana and

methamphetamine and experimentation with valium or Xanax and 

Ecstasy/MDMA.

[12] We acknowledge Davis’ difficult and troubled childhood and the apparent 

influence of his brother in these offenses. Given the brutality of the acts against 

W.M., Davis’ criminal history, and the fact that Davis downplays his 

involvement in these offenses, however, we cannot say that the nine-year 

sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2619 | August 14, 2019 Page 7 of 7

Conclusion

[13] Davis’ nine-year sentence is not inappropriate. We affirm.

[14] Affirmed.

Crone, J., and Bradford, J., concur.