Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1534 | November 20, 2019 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

Angela N. Sanchez

Assistant Section Chief

Criminal Appeals

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Benjamin M. Daniels,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

November 20, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-1534

Appeal from the Henry Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Kit C. Dean Crane, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

33C02-1704-F6-177

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1534 | November 20, 2019 Page 2 of 7

Statement of the Case

[1] Benjamin M. Daniels appeals his sentence following his convictions for two 

counts of battery against a public safety official, as Level 6 felonies. Daniels 

raises one issue for our review, namely, whether his sentence is inappropriate in 

light of the nature of the offenses and his character. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In early 2017, Daniels was an inmate in the Henry County Jail. On January 17, 

Henry County Jail Correctional Officer Jeremy Brown entered Daniels’ cell 

block to speak with the assistant jail commander. While Officer Brown was 

talking with the assistant commander, Daniels, who was in the common area of 

the cell block, reached his arms through the bars and “grabbed at” Officer 

Brown. Tr. Vol. II at 25. Officer Brown asked Daniels to stop, but Daniel

repeatedly grabbed at Officer Brown. Daniels also threatened to “stomp” 

Officer Brown’s “brains out.” Id. at 74. Officer Brown then told Daniels to 

return to his individual cell. Daniels refused and, instead, argued with Officer 

Brown. 

[3] At that point, Officer Brown entered the common area and again ordered 

Daniels to his cell. When Daniels did not comply, Officer Brown placed his 

hand on Daniels’ shoulder in order to direct Daniels toward his cell. Daniels

then pulled away and struck Officer Brown in the face. Officer Brown 

responded “in kind,” and the two started “wrestling around.” Id. at 87. Other 

officers responded to assist Officer Brown. While the officers were attempting 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1534 | November 20, 2019 Page 3 of 7

to subdue Daniels, Daniels bit Officer Brown on his left arm. The officers were 

eventually able to secure Daniels and place him in a holding cell. As a result of 

the altercation, Officer Brown’s shirt was bloodstained, and he was taken to the 

hospital, where he received x-rays and a tetanus shot.

[4] Thereafter, on February 19, Henry County Jail Correctional Officer Amanda 

Thackery and another officer responded to Daniels’ cell block after they were 

informed that a blanket was covering one of the security cameras. When the 

two officers arrived, Officer Thackery noticed “a mess of wires” on a table 

inside the cell block. Id. at 102. Because Officer Thackery believed that the 

wires were “some type of . . . tattooing device” that the inmates were not 

allowed to possess, Officer Thackery entered the cell block and removed the 

wires from the table. Id. At that point, Daniels grabbed the wires from Officer 

Thackery’s hand and “wrapped” them around her wrists. Id. at 103. Officer 

Thackery told Daniels to stop “multiple times,” but Daniels did not stop. 

Instead, he “[t]ightened” the wires around Officer Thackery’s wrists and

“lift[ed]” her off the ground with the wires. Id. Daniels then started “physically 

fighting” with Officer Thackery. Id. at 72. He “was pretty much tossing her 

around, due to her small size.” Id. Ultimately, the other officer was able to pull 

Daniels away from Officer Thackery. As a result of the altercation, Officer 

Thackery sustained a cut on her finger and some redness on her wrists from the 

wires. 

[5] The State charged Daniels with two counts of battery against a public safety 

official, as Level 6 felonies. At the conclusion of a jury trial on May 3, 2019, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1534 | November 20, 2019 Page 4 of 7

the jury found Daniels guilty as charged. The court entered judgment of 

conviction accordingly and sentenced Daniels to two years for each count. The 

court then ordered those sentences to be served consecutively, for an aggregate 

sentence of four years executed in the Department of Correction. This appeal 

ensued. 

Discussion and Decision

[6] Daniels contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offenses 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 recently 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 v. 

State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind.), as amended (July 10, 2007), 

decision clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).

Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1534 | November 20, 2019 Page 5 of 7

[7] 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 

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). 

[8] The sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is six months to two and one-half 

years, with an advisory sentence of one year. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7 (2019). 

Here, the trial court identified as an aggravating factor Daniels’ criminal 

history. And the court did not identify any mitigators. Accordingly, the court 

sentenced Daniels to two years executed in the Department of Correction on 

each count and ordered the sentences to run consecutively, for an aggregate 

sentence of four years. 

[9] On appeal, Daniels asserts that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offenses because “there was nothing particularly remarkable about 

either incident[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 7. And Daniels contends that his sentence 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1534 | November 20, 2019 Page 6 of 7

is inappropriate in light of his character because he “suffered a traumatic 

childhood” and because he “had taken advantage of rehabilitation programs” in 

the Department of Correction. Id. at 8. 

[10] However, Daniels has not met his burden on appeal to demonstrate that his 

sentence is inappropriate. With respect to the nature of the first offense, 

Daniels threatened and repeatedly grabbed at Officer Brown. Then, when 

Officer Brown attempted to get Daniels to return to his cell, Daniels struck

Officer Brown in the face. Daniels then starting “wrestling around” with 

Officer Brown. Tr. Vol. II at 87. And Daniels bit Officer Brown on the arm

when officers attempted to subdue him. As a result of the altercation, Officer 

Brown had to seek treatment at the hospital. And with respect to the nature of 

the second offense, Daniels wrapped wires around Officer Thackery’s wrists 

when she attempted to remove the contraband from the common area. When 

Officer Thacker asked Daniels to stop, he instead tightened the wires around 

her wrists, picked her up using the wires, and started “tossing her around.” Id. 

at 72. In essence, Daniels twice battered jail officers who were attempting to 

perform their duties. Accordingly, we cannot say that Daniels’ sentence is 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses. 

[11] As to his character, Daniels has a lengthy criminal history that includes three 

juvenile delinquency adjudications, five felony convictions, and two 

misdemeanor convictions. Moreover, Daniels has been given numerous 

opportunities to avoid incarceration in the past through alternative sentences, 

but he continues to commit crimes. Further, Daniels was being held in jail for 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1534 | November 20, 2019 Page 7 of 7

other drug-related charges at the time he committed the instant offenses, which 

reflects poorly on his character. We therefore cannot say that Daniels’ sentence 

is inappropriate in light of his character. We affirm Daniels’ sentence. 

[12] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and May, J., concur.