Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2453 | April 3, 2019 Page 1 of 9

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

Carlos I. Carrillo

Law Office of Carlos I. Carrillo, LLC

Greenwood, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Erik J. Bryant

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Lawrence A. Bell,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 3, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2453

Appeal from the Tippecanoe 

Superior Court

The Honorable Randy J. Williams, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

79D01-1804-F5-65

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2453 | April 3, 2019 Page 2 of 9

Statement of the Case

[1] Lawrence A. Bell appeals his conviction and sentence for battery, as a Level 5 

felony, and his adjudication as a habitual offender. Bell presents two issues for 

our review:

1. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support 

his battery conviction.

2. Whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature 

of the offense and his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Bell suffers from bipolar disorder with psychotic features, paranoia, and 

schizophrenia. On April 2, 2018, Bell, then an inmate at the Tippecanoe 

County Jail, contacted jail personnel by intercom to request that he be moved to 

a different cell. Bell stated that if he was not allowed to move, “something bad 

was going to happen.” Tr. at 18. A short time after his request to move was 

denied, Bell picked up a mop wringer and walked over to where his cell mate, 

David Bibbs, was watching television. Bell then, without any provocation,

struck Bibbs over the head with the mop wringer, knocking Bibbs unconscious. 

Bell then struck Bibbs twice more with the mop wringer before two inmates 

intervened and persuaded Bell to stop.

[4] The State charged Bell with two counts of battery, as Level 5 felonies, and 

criminal recklessness, as a Level 6 felony. The State also alleged that Bell was a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2453 | April 3, 2019 Page 3 of 9

habitual offender. Following a bench trial, the trial court found Bell guilty as 

charged, but entered judgment of conviction only on the Level 5 felony count of 

battery, and the court adjudicated Bell to be a habitual offender. At sentencing, 

the trial court identified three aggravators and three mitigators and imposed a 

nine-year aggregate sentence, with five years suspended to probation. This 

appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Issue One: Sufficiency of the Evidence

[5] Bell first contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his 

battery conviction. As our Supreme Court has stated:

When an appeal raises “a sufficiency of evidence challenge, we 

do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the 

witnesses, and we respect a fact-finder’s ‘exclusive province to 

weigh conflicting evidence.’” Joslyn v. State, 942 N.E.2d 809, 811 

(Ind. 2011) (quoting Alkhalidi v. State, 753 N.E.2d 625, 627 (Ind. 

2001)). We consider only the probative evidence and the 

reasonable inferences that support the verdict. Tharp v. State, 942 

N.E.2d 814, 816 (Ind. 2011). “We will affirm ‘if the probative

evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence 

could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant 

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Joslyn, 942 N.E.2d at 811 

(quoting Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109, 111-12 (Ind. 2000)).

Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1195 (Ind. 2018).

[6] To prove battery, as a Level 5 felony, as charged here, the State was required to 

show that Bell knowingly or intentionally touched Bibbs in a rude, insolent, or 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2453 | April 3, 2019 Page 4 of 9

angry manner by means of a deadly weapon. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1 (2018). On 

appeal, Bell first maintains that the State did not prove that he was the man 

who committed the battery against Bibbs. Bell also claims that the State did not 

prove that he knowingly or intentionally committed the battery. We address 

each contention in turn.

Identity

[7] Bell contends that the State did not present any testimony to prove that Bell is 

the person who struck Bibbs. Indeed, our review of the transcript shows that, 

while Lieutenant Robert Hainje testified that, based on his review of 

surveillance footage of the battery, he identified Bell as “a suspect,” he did not 

definitively state that Bell had committed the battery. Tr. at 8. And the State 

did not present any eyewitness testimony to identify Bell as the perpetrator.

[8] But Lieutenant Hainje’s testimony was not the only identity evidence. As the 

State points out, the trial court watched surveillance video of the battery, and 

the court could have concluded from that video that Bell was the man who 

struck Bibbs with the mop wringer.1 In addition, the State presented 

circumstantial evidence to prove that Bell was the perpetrator, including 

evidence that he had asked to move to a different cell over the intercom before 

the battery, as well as testimony that Bell could be seen holding the mop 

 

1

 The surveillance video was not provided to this Court on appeal. Regardless, Bell does not dispute (not 

that he even could without the video) the State’s contention that the video shows Bell committing the battery 

against Bibbs.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2453 | April 3, 2019 Page 5 of 9

wringer shortly before the battery. We cannot say that the evidence is 

insufficient to prove that Bell is the person who committed the battery against 

Bibbs.

Mens Rea

[9] Bell also contends that, because he has a severe mental illness, the evidence 

does not show that he knowingly or intentionally committed the battery against 

Bibbs. In short, Bell maintains that the battery “was not explained by anything 

other than his mental illness.” Appellant’s Br. at 14. We cannot agree.

[10] First, Bell did not present an insanity defense at his trial. Second, even if Bell 

had pleaded insanity, it would not have been the State’s burden to disprove 

Bell’s mental illness to prove that he acted knowingly and intentionally in this 

instance. See Cate v. State, 644 N.E.2d 546, 548 (Ind. 1994).

[11] A person engages in conduct “intentionally” if, when he engages in the 

conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so, and a person engages in conduct 

“knowingly” if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high 

probability that he is doing so. Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2. Here, the State 

presented evidence, including video surveillance recordings, showing that Bell 

threatened that something bad would happen if he could not move to a new cell

and that Bell, without provocation, struck Bibbs, his cell mate, three times with 

a mop wringer before two other inmates stopped him from striking him a fourth 

time. This evidence is sufficient to prove that Bell knowingly and intentionally 

committed battery.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2453 | April 3, 2019 Page 6 of 9

Issue Two: Sentence

[12] Bell contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “[t]he 

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.” This Court 

has recently held that “[t]he advisory sentence is the starting point the 

legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” 

Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). And the Indiana 

Supreme Court has explained that:

The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to 

leaven the outliers . . . but not achieve a perceived “correct” 

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

2008). Defendant has the burden to persuade us that the 

sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. [Anglemyer, 

868 N.E.2d at 494].

Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original).

[13] Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate 

sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court’s judgment “should 

receive considerable deference.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. Whether we 

regard a sentence as inappropriate 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 facts that come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224. 

The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2453 | April 3, 2019 Page 7 of 9

whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 

268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] 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).

[14] Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-6(b) states that a person convicted of a Level 5

felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term between one and six years, with an 

advisory sentence of three years. Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-8 states in 

relevant part that, where a person has been convicted of a Level 5 felony and 

found to be a habitual offender, the court shall sentence him to an additional 

fixed term that is between two years and six years. Here, the trial court 

identified as aggravating circumstances Bell’s criminal history, his history of 

substance abuse, and his failed attempts at rehabilitation. The trial court

identified as mitigating circumstances Bell’s mental illness, the victim’s wishes,

2

and Bell’s family support. The trial court found that the aggravators 

outweighed the mitigators and imposed five years for the Level 5 battery, 

suspended to probation, with a four-year habitual offender enhancement, which 

is non-suspendible, to be executed in the Department of Correction.

 

2

 Bibbs wrote a letter to the trial court stating, in essence, that he did not think the State should have brought 

charges against Bell.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2453 | April 3, 2019 Page 8 of 9

[15] Bell maintains that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense because the battery was “sporadic, random, and without reasonable 

explanation” and could only be explained by his severe mental illness. 

Appellant’s Br. at 17. Bell asserts that jail personnel knew he was mentally ill

and that his request to move “should have been granted for the safety of Bell 

and others.” Id. As for his character, Bell points out the evidence showing that 

the battery was an “impulsive reaction” consistent with his mental illness, as 

well as his mother’s testimony that he could be “kind” and “thoughtful” when 

he was “mentally stable.” Id. at 19.

[16] We cannot say that Bell’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense. After Bell struck Bibbs with a mop wringer, which weighed 

approximately eight pounds, and knocked Bibbs unconscious, he struck Bibbs 

twice more with the mop wringer. Bell only stopped because two other inmates 

intervened. Bibbs had no memory of the attack, and he experienced “throbbing 

pain” in his head for a week. Tr. at 37-38.

[17] Neither can we say that Bell’s sentence is inappropriate in light of his character. 

Bell’s criminal history is substantial. In particular, Bell has nine prior felony 

convictions and twenty-seven prior misdemeanor convictions, and his 

probation has been revoked five times. In addition, at the time Bell committed 

the battery against Bibbs, he was incarcerated awaiting trial on pending theft 

charges. Bell admitted to a history of substance abuse dating back to his 

teenage years, but he first sought substance abuse treatment in 2018. While Bell 

is clearly mentally ill, the trial court took that factor into consideration and gave 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2453 | April 3, 2019 Page 9 of 9

it mitigating weight. In light of Bell’s extensive criminal history, we cannot say 

that his mental illness warrants a revised sentence.

[18] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Robb, J., concur.