Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2216 | April 14, 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

Cara Schaefer Wieneke

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Sierra A. Murray

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Scott A. Edwards,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 14, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-2216

Appeal from the Vigo Superior 

Court

The Honorable Sarah K. Mullican, 

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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.