Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1682 | November 28, 2018 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

R. Brian Woodward

Appellate Public Defender

Crown Point, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Chandra K. Hein

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

John Fitzgerald Johnson, Jr.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

November 28, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-1682

Appeal from the Lake Superior 

Court

The Honorable Clarence D. 

Murray, Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

45G02-1602-F2-3

45G02-1606-F3-21

Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1682 | November 28, 2018 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary

[1] In April of 2018, pursuant to a plea agreement, John Fitzgerald Johnson, Jr., 

pled guilty to one count of Level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly weapon 

and two counts of Level 5 felony robbery in Lake County. In exchange, the 

State agreed to dismiss all remaining counts. The trial court sentenced Johnson 

to fifteen years of incarceration. Johnson contends that the trial court abused its 

discretion by finding his eleven victims, who were listed in the stipulated factual 

basis, to be an aggravating circumstance. Further, Johnson contends that his 

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

Because we disagree, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 23, 2016, Johnson and N’Vaun Lewis arranged to meet with 

Robert Wisniewski about Johnson’s truck, which he had listed for sale on 

Craigslist. When Wisniewski and his father arrived, Johnson demanded that

they hand over money and other property or be shot. Johnson and Lewis took 

Wisniewski’s mobile telephone and fled. On February 2, 2016, Johnson and

Lewis again arranged a meeting about Johnson’s truck, this time with Cain 

Herrera. When Herrera arrived accompanied by his father and brother, Johnson 

and Lewis rushed their vehicle. As Herrera and his family drove away, Johnson 

pulled out a handgun and fired multiple close-range shots at the vehicle, one

striking Herrera in the face. Herrera’s jaw was fractured, he lost teeth and part 

of his tongue, and he had to attend speech therapy to relearn to talk and eat.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1682 | November 28, 2018 Page 3 of 6

The State charged Johnson, in cause number 45G02-1602-F2-3 (“Cause No. 

F2-3”), with one count of Level 2 felony attempted robbery resulting in serious 

bodily injury, two counts of Level 3 felony armed robbery, and two counts of 

Level 3 felony attempted robbery.

[3] On April 14, 2016, Brandon Arizpe agreed to meet Johnson to purchase a 

television that Johnson had listed for sale on Craigslist. When Arizpe arrived, 

Johnson demanded money and began making threats, including telling Arizpe 

that he had a gun. Johnson ultimately took money, two mobile telephones, and 

a handgun from Arizpe. On June 17, 2016, the State charged Johnson, under 

cause number 45G02-1606-F3-21 (“Cause No. F3-21”), with two counts of 

Level 3 felony armed robbery and two counts of Level 3 felony criminal 

confinement.

[4] Pursuant to a plea agreement, on April 3, 2018, Johnson pled guilty in 

amended Cause No. F2-3 to Level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly 

weapon and Level 5 felony robbery and in amended Cause No. F3-21 to Level 

5 felony robbery. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss all remaining counts, 

and Johnson consented to the stipulated factual basis which was submitted to 

the trial court by the State. On June 1, 2018, the trial court sentenced Johnson 

to consecutive five-year terms of incarceration on each count, for an aggregate 

sentence of fifteen years. The trial court concluded that the aggravating 

circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances, most notably 

Johnson’s criminal history, the number of victims, and the nature and 

circumstances of the offenses.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1682 | November 28, 2018 Page 4 of 6

Discussion and Decision

I. Abuse of Discretion

[5] Johnson contends that the trial court abused its discretion by improperly finding

his eleven victims to be an aggravating circumstance at sentencing. We review 

the trial court’s finding of an aggravating circumstance for an abuse of 

discretion. Spiller v. State, 740 N.E.2d 1270, 1274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. 

denied. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly 

against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or 

when the court misinterprets the law.” Johnson v. State, 36 N.E.3d 1130, 1133 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.

[6] Johnson specifically asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by 

considering his eleven victims to be an aggravating circumstance when only 

nine where included in the stipulated factual basis and the trial court failed to 

establish that each of those victims was harmed. Both of Johnson’s assertions

fail. First, the stipulated factual basis did list eleven different victims.

Moreover, the trial court did not need to establish that a particular harm

occurred to each person because Johnson stipulated that these eleven named 

persons were victims. Johnson has failed to establish that the trial court abused 

its discretion by finding the eleven victims of his crimes to be an aggravating 

circumstance. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1682 | November 28, 2018 Page 5 of 6

II. Appropriateness 

[7] Johnson contends that his fifteen-year sentence is inappropriate. We may revise 

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). “Sentencing is 

principally a discretionary function in which the trial court’s judgment should 

receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 

2008) (internal citations omitted). The defendant bears the burden of proving 

that his sentence is inappropriate in the light of both the nature of his offense 

and his character. Gil v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1231, 1237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). 

Johnson pled guilty to one count of Level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly 

weapon and two counts of Level 5 felony robbery and received a sentence of 

five years executed for each conviction, to be served consecutively, which is 

above the advisory, but below the maximum. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6. 

[8] The nature of Johnson’s offenses does not support a reduction in his sentence. 

Johnson carefully planned to lure his victims to a place where he would rob 

them and battered one in a far more brutal manner then was necessary to 

sustain his conviction. Moreover, by committing multiple crimes against 

multiple victims, the trial court was justified in imposing consecutive sentences. 

See O’Connell v. State, 742 N.E.2d 943, 952 (Ind. 2001) (emphasizing that 

multiple crimes or victims constitute a valid aggravating circumstance for 

imposing consecutive sentences). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1682 | November 28, 2018 Page 6 of 6

[9] Johnson’s character also does not support a reduction in his sentence. The 

thirty-two-year-old Johnson has a history with the criminal and juvenile justice 

systems that dates back to an arrest for truancy at age fifteen. As a juvenile, 

Johnson was adjudicated delinquent for what would be Class D felony theft and 

Class A misdemeanor conversion if committed by an adult. As an adult, 

Johnson has convictions for Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, 

Class B misdemeanor visiting a common nuisance, and Class C felony criminal 

recklessness. Johnson has also violated parole. At the time of sentencing in this 

case, Johnson had pending charges in Marion County for Level 5 felony 

possession of a handgun. Despite his many contacts with the criminal and 

juvenile justice systems, Johnson has been unwilling to conform his actions to 

societal norms. Johnson has failed to establish that his sentence is 

inappropriate. 

[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.