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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

ADAM G. FORREST GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Boston Bever Klinge Cross & Chidester Attorney General of Indiana

Richmond, Indiana

KENNETH E. BIGGINS

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

ATAUL SHAFEEK, JR., )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 89A01-1403-CR-147

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT

The Honorable David A. Kolger, Judge

Cause No. 89C01-1301-MR-1

January 23, 2015

MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BARNES, Judge
2

Case Summary

Ataul Shafeek, Jr., appeals his fifty-six year sentence for murder. We affirm.

Issues

Shafeek raises one issue, which we restate as whether his sentence is 

inappropriate.

Facts

In 2012, Shafeek, who lived in Dayton, Ohio, had a two-year-old daughter with 

Jazamine Allen, who lived in Richmond. The two were no longer a couple and 

exchanged custody of their daughter every two weeks. On January 11, 2013, Shafeek 

had returned their daughter to Allen’s apartment without incident. Allen was there with 

her two other children, her sister, her sister’s child, and Shaun Ali, Allen’s boyfriend.

The next day, January 12, 2013, Allen was at her apartment with her sister, Ali, 

and the four children. She noticed that she had seven missed calls from Shafeek. Around 

the same time Shafeek appeared unexpectedly at her apartment and pushed his way into 

the apartment to visit with the children. Allen asked Shafeek to leave, and he refused. 

Instead, Allen and Ali went for a walk. Shafeek twice approached the couple while they 

were out. When the three returned to the apartment, Shafeek attempted to block the door 

to prevent Ali from entering the apartment. Shafeek explained that Ali was devil, who 

was trying to kill him. The two men then began arguing in a bedroom where one of the 

children was sleeping. Ali was able restrain Shafeek, and Allen took the child from the 

bedroom. When Allen returned to the bedroom, Shafeek was stabbing Ali with a kitchen 

knife that Shafeek had put in the bedroom earlier. Allen was able to intervene, and 
3

Shafeek left the apartment as police arrived. Ali was stabbed twenty times and died from 

his injuries. 

The State charged Shafeek with murder. Shafeek pursued the defenses of selfdefense and mental disease or defect. Shafeek eventually stipulated to his competency to 

stand trial but maintained his defense of mental disease or defect. Dr. Edmund Haskins, a 

clinical neuropsychologist, testified at Shafeek’s jury trial that Shafeek suffered from 

bipolar disorder with psychosis. Dr. George Parker, a forensic psychiatrist, also 

diagnosed Shafeek as having bipolar disorder with psychotic features. At the trial, 

Shafeek testified that a voice told him Ali was trying to kill him, that the knife spoke to 

him when he was in kitchen, and that, when he was stabbing Ali, he was having an outof-body experience in which God was fighting the devil. The jury found Shafeek guilty 

of murder.

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court considered as aggravating that Shafeek 

had not been leading a law-abiding life despite having no significant criminal history 

because he used marijuana daily. The trial court also considered as aggravating the fact 

that the crime was committed in close proximity to four young children. As mitigating, 

the trial court considered Shafeek’s mental illness but acknowledged that Shafeek was 

aware of the issue and self-medicated with marijuana instead of treating it. The trial 

court determined that the aggravators outweighed the mitigators and sentenced Shafeek 

to fifty-six years. However, to account for Shafeek’s mental illness, the trial court 

suspended five years of that sentence to probation to make sure Shafeek does not selfmedicate and takes the proper medication upon his release. Shafeek now appeals.
4

Analysis

Shafeek argues that his fifty-six-year sentence is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate 

Rule 7(B) permits us to 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. Although Rule 7(B) does not 

require us to be “extremely” deferential to a trial court’s sentencing decision, we still 

must give due consideration to that decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We also understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial 

court brings to its sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a defendant bears the burden 

of persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate.” Id.

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). We “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 a sentence is 

inappropriate ultimately turns on 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. Id. at 1224. When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence under Rule 7(B), 

we may consider all aspects of the penal consequences imposed by the trial court in 

sentencing the defendant, including whether a portion of the sentence was suspended. 

Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010). 
5

Regarding the nature of the offense, Shafeek went to Allen’s home uninvited,

refused to leave upon her request, put a knife in a bedroom, and stabbed Ali twenty times, 

while four young children were present in the home. Even if Ali threw the first punch, 

we are not persuaded that Shafeek’s actions were provoked by Ali as Shafeek argues. 

Prior to the physical altercation, Shafeek had refused Allen’s request to leave the 

apartment and Shafeek forcibly tried to block Ali’s entry into the apartment. Nothing 

about the nature of the offense warrants the reduction of the sentence. 

As for his character, although Shafeek does not have a significant criminal history, 

his criminal history does include a juvenile adjudication. Moreover, twenty-four-year-old 

Shafeek admitted to smoking marijuana daily since he was eighteen. This type of illegal 

drug use is not indicative of someone who has led a law-abiding life. As for his mental 

health, there is evidence that he suffers from bipolar disorder with psychosis and 

depression. However, Dr. Parker concluded that, despite Shafeek’s mental illness, he had 

“a basic appreciation of the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the alleged 

offense.” Sent. Hr. Ex. 3. p. 9. Also, there is evidence that Shafeek had been suffering 

from hallucinations for several months and was hospitalized for his mental health issues 

in December 2012. He was released the next day because he was no longer suicidal, and 

an out-patient mental health follow-up was recommended. However, Shafeek did not 

seek additional treatment. The trial court considered Shafeek’s mental illness when it 

crafted his sentenced and specifically suspended five years of his sentence to account for 

his mental illness. In light of the nature of the brutal attack in the presence of four young 

children, we cannot conclude that the fifty-six-year sentence is inappropriate. 
6

Conclusion

Shafeek has not established that his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.

MAY, J., and PYLE, J., concur.