Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1409-CR-629] | April 8, 2015 Page 1 of 6

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

Craig Persinger

Marion, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Jonathan R. Sichtermann 

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Samuel Trahan IV,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 8, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

27A02-1409-CR-629

Appeal from the Grant Superior 

Court

The Honorable Dana J. Kenworthy, 

Judge

Case No. 27D02-1403-CM-44

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Despite a no-contact order, Samuel Trahan IV contacted the victim of his 

crimes numerous times while he was in jail awaiting trial. He pled guilty to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1409-CR-629] | April 8, 2015 Page 2 of 6

Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy, and the trial court sentenced him to 

nine months executed in the Indiana Department of Correction. On appeal, he

argues that his sentence is inappropriate. We find that the escalating severity of 

Trahan’s crimes and the fact that lesser punishments have not deterred Trahan 

justifies his nine-month sentence. We therefore affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2013 Trahan was charged with Class C felony battery resulting in bodily 

injury to a pregnant woman, Class D felony strangulation, Class D felony 

residential entry, and Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass in Case No. 

27D02-1312-FC-92 (“Case No. 92”). PSI p. 5. At the initial hearing, the trial 

court issued a no-contact order that prohibited Trahan from contacting the 

victim of his crimes, his pregnant girlfriend Cindy Vanessa Medina. Tr. p. 23. 

[3] In January 2014, while incarcerated at the Grant County Security Complex 

awaiting trial in Case No. 92, Trahan contacted Cindy approximately ten times

using his sister, Asia Boff, as an intermediary. That is, Trahan called Asia, who 

then called Cindy using three-way calling. Some of the phone calls were about 

Trahan and Cindy’s newborn son; however, in other phone calls Trahan asked 

Cindy to contact his lawyer in order to help him with his charges in Case No. 

92. 

[4] The State charged Trahan with Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy for 

violating the no-contact order. Trahan pled guilty as charged without the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1409-CR-629] | April 8, 2015 Page 3 of 6

benefit of a plea agreement, and the trial court accepted Trahan’s plea. Both 

Trahan and Cindy testified at the sentencing hearing. Cindy testified that she 

no longer wanted the no-contact order in place and that Trahan did not 

threaten or harass her during the calls. Trahan admitted violating the nocontact order but claimed that the majority of the calls were about his newborn 

son. He acknowledged that he asked Cindy to contact his attorney. Id. at 20. 

The court found three aggravators: (1) Trahan has a substantial criminal 

history, which the court described as “a strong aggravator”; (2) Trahan enlisted 

his sister, Asia, to violate the no-contact order, which subjected her to criminal 

charges and demonstrated his “selfish nature”; and (3) Trahan’s “character and 

attitude indicate that [he] is not likely to follow orders of the Court, or rules of 

probation.” Appellant’s App. p. 40. The court found one mitigator: 

In the PSI, the probation officer has found that [Trahan] is likely to 

respond to short term incarceration or probation. However, based 

upon [Trahan’s] pattern of behavior, character and attitudes, the Court 

finds this is a weak mitigating factor.

Id. Concluding that the aggravators outweighed the mitigators, the court 

sentenced Trahan to nine months executed in the DOC, to be served 

consecutive to his sentence in Case No. 92.

1

 The court gave Trahan credit for 

135 “actual” days he was incarcerated. Id. at 41. 

 

1 The trial court would have sentenced Trahan to a greater sentence in this case:

The State’s asking for nine months executed. Frankly, I would’ve given you more. I am 

giving you the benefit of pleading guilty to this case and taking responsibility and for that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1409-CR-629] | April 8, 2015 Page 4 of 6

[5] Trahan now appeals his sentence.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Trahan contends that his nine-month sentence is inappropriate and asks us to 

reduce it to ninety days. See Appellant’s Br. p. 6. 

[7] Our appellate rules authorize revision of a sentence “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.” Ind. 

Appellate Rule 7(B). “[A] defendant must persuade the appellate court that his 

or her sentence has met this inappropriateness standard of review.” Childress v. 

State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

[8] The principal role of Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the 

outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged 

with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived 

‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind.

2008). 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. Id. at 1224.

 

reason, I will accept the State’s recommendation and sentence you to nine months 

executed . . . .

 Tr. p. 30.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1409-CR-629] | April 8, 2015 Page 5 of 6

[9] Indiana Code section 35-50-3-2 provides that “[a] person who commits a Class 

A misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than one (1) 

year[.]” Here, the trial court sentenced Trahan to nine months. 

[10] Trahan contends the nature of the offense is “minor” because his violation of 

the no-contact order was “technical, given that the victim did not indicate that 

she felt threatened or that her privacy was compromised in a meaningful 

sense.” Appellant’s Br. p. 5. Although this case may not involve an egregious 

violation of a no-contact order, Trahan, while in jail awaiting trial on charges 

for harming his pregnant girlfriend, used his sister as an intermediary to contact 

Cindy approximately ten times. In some of the calls, Trahan asked Cindy to 

contact his lawyer in order to help him with his charges in Case No. 92. 

[11] Trahan concedes that his character, as reflected by his criminal history, 

“indicates some difficulty in abiding by the law.” Id. Trahan was twenty-four 

years old when he was sentenced in this case. His PSI reflects the following 

convictions: misdemeanor minor consumption of alcohol (2011), misdemeanor 

possession of marijuana (2011), and misdemeanor possession of marijuana 

(2012). In addition, in Case No. 92, Trahan pled guilty to Class C felony 

battery resulting in bodily injury to a pregnant woman, Class D felony 

strangulation, and Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass, and the trial court 

sentenced him to an aggregate term of four years, with two years suspended to 

probation. Finally, Trahan was on probation when he violated the no-contact 

order in this case. See Tr. p. 5. The escalating severity of Trahan’s crimes and 

the fact that lesser punishments have not deterred Trahan justifies his nine-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1409-CR-629] | April 8, 2015 Page 6 of 6

month sentence for violating the no-contact order by contacting the victim of 

his crimes while in jail awaiting trial. We therefore affirm Trahan’s sentence. 

[12] Affirmed. 

Kirsch, J., and Bradford, J., concur.