Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 1 of 19

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Michael R. Fisher

Marion County Public Defender Agency

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Courtney Staton

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jonathan Belcher,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

December 20, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-830

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Lisa F. Borges, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G04-1710-F3-41224

May, Judge.

[1] Jonathan Belcher appeals his convictions of and aggregate sentence for two 

counts of Level 3 felony aggravated battery,1 one count each of Class B 

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.5.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 2 of 19

misdemeanor battery2 and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement,

3

and the finding that he is an habitual offender.4

 He raises two issues on appeal, 

which we expand and restate as the following three issues: 

(1) whether there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s 

finding that Belcher understood and appreciated the 

wrongfulness of his conduct; 

(2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in its 

consideration of Belcher’s mental health at sentencing; and 

(3) whether a 53-year-and-180-day sentence is inappropriate in 

light of the nature of the offenses and Belcher’s character. 

We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On October 19, 2017, David Smith, a regional sales manager for a chemical 

coating company, flew from North Carolina to Indianapolis to assist in 

interviewing applicants for a position in the company’s Indianapolis office. 

Amjad Farah, Smith’s friend and colleague, traveled from the company’s 

Michigan office to Indianapolis to also assist with the interviews. After Smith 

and Farah finished conducting the interviews, they went to a downtown 

2 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.

3 Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1.

4 Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 3 of 19

Indianapolis steakhouse for dinner. They finished dinner around 6:30 pm and 

walked to Monument Circle. 

[3] Around this same time, Jennifer Crouch, her husband, and her children were 

visiting Monument Circle. They were on vacation in Indianapolis to see family 

and visit local attractions. Crouch’s husband and children walked up the steps 

of the Indiana State Soldiers and Sailors Monument, and Crouch stayed toward 

the base of the memorial to take a picture of her family. Belcher approached 

Crouch and asked her what she was doing. She said that she was at the 

monument with her children, and Belcher said, “you don’t have any kids.” (Tr. 

Vol. II at 109.) Belcher was aggressive and his tone of voice was mean. 

Belcher walked away for a brief period and then returned. Belcher pushed

Crouch and she fell flat on the ground. Belcher then backed up to get a running 

start and kicked the front of Crouch’s head “like a football kickoff for a field 

goal kicker.” (Id. at 92.) A bystander ran to Crouch, and Belcher walked

around the monument towards Smith and Farah.

[4] Smith and Farah were admiring the Soldiers and Sailors Monument when they 

heard Belcher angrily yell out “mother f[*****].” (Id. at 29.) As Smith turned 

his head toward the noise, Belcher punched him in the side of the head. Smith 

went stiff and fell to the ground. Belcher started swinging at Farah, and one of 

Belcher’s punches grazed Farah. When other bystanders started to yell, Belcher 

walked away. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 4 of 19

[5] Officers responded to the scene, encountered Belcher, and commanded him to 

get on the ground. Belcher shouted at the officers, “this is my ship” or “get off 

my ship.” (Id. at 146.) When officers continued to command Belcher to get on 

the ground, he responded “F[***] you. You get on the ground.” (Id. at 132.) 

Belcher turned and briskly walked away from the officers. Belcher ignored

further repeated directions to stop and warnings that officers were going to 

deploy their tasers. Eventually, an officer used a taser on Belcher. Belcher fell 

to the ground and resisted officers trying to cuff him, but officers were able to 

secure him and take him into custody. Belcher made a comment to a State 

Police Trooper on the scene that the Indiana State Police did not have 

jurisdiction over Monument Circle. Rather, Belcher asserted the Indianapolis 

Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) had jurisdiction.

[6] Ambulances rushed Smith and Crouch to local hospitals. Smith underwent 

brain surgery in Indianapolis, and doctors placed him in a medically induced 

coma. He stayed in an Indianapolis hospital for three weeks before being 

transferred to a brain and spinal rehabilitation facility in Atlanta, Georgia. He 

was incapacitated and required around-the-clock care. He was fed through a 

feeding tube and received drugs intravenously. After seven months at the 

Atlanta facility, his family decided to cease the life-sustaining measures and 

Smith died on May 28, 2018.

[7] Crouch was released from the hospital approximately seven hours after the 

incident. Crouch briefly lost consciousness after Belcher kicked her. At the 

hospital, she had vertigo and struggled to sit in a chair. She also sustained an 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 5 of 19

eye injury. Crouch’s husband had to take six weeks off work to care for her. 

She had balance issues that required her to use a wheelchair for a period and

then a walker, and she needed to attend physical therapy. Crouch also saw a 

neurologist, who diagnosed her with a spinal fluid leak. Crouch thought she 

would need surgery to correct that leak, but it resolved itself without surgery.

[8] The court referred Belcher to psychologist Dr. Don Olive to perform a 

competence and sanity evaluation, and he met with Belcher at the Marion 

County Jail on November 17, 2017. Dr. Olive reviewed records from the 

Marion County Jail prior to visiting with Belcher. Those records indicated 

Belcher’s previous diagnoses included Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, and 

Depression. Belcher had received both inpatient and outpatient mental health 

treatment in the past and was released from Community Hospital North on 

October 11, 2017. During Belcher’s interview with Dr. Olive, Belcher

mentioned that he had been found not responsible by reason of insanity in a 

previous case. He also talked about being stuck in a computer game and being 

hunted by zombies. Dr. Olive concluded with reasonable psychological 

certainty that Belcher was both not competent to stand trial and not criminally 

responsible at the time of the alleged offenses.

[9] Dr. George Parker, a medical doctor and professor of clinical psychology at the 

Indiana University School of Medicine, also performed a competency 

evaluation. He met with Belcher at the Marion County Jail on November 30, 

2017. Belcher began the interview by asking Dr. Parker, “[A]re you from a 

water border or a land border?” (App. Vol. II at 83.) During the interview, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 6 of 19

Belcher repeatedly punched a code into an imaginary keypad on the interview 

room partition. Dr. Parker found this behavior odd because, based on his 

experience in conducting many competency and sanity evaluations, defendants 

typically do not advertise their symptoms at the beginning of an interview. 

Belcher claimed to be living in a video game and described the court 

proceedings as part of the game. He mentioned that he had been found not 

responsible by reason of insanity in a previous case. He also claimed to see 

holograms of great white sharks. Dr. Parker learned Belcher lived in a general 

population unit at the jail and did not cause any problems in the unit. Dr. 

Parker also reviewed Belcher’s medical records, including a competence and 

sanity report he himself had prepared in 2015 concerning a criminal case 

involving Belcher. In 2015, Belcher told Dr. Parker that he became paranoid 

when he smoked marijuana without also drinking alcohol. Dr. Parker 

concluded with reasonable medical certainty that Belcher “may meet criteria for 

diagnoses of malingering, schizophrenia and/or bipolar disorder” and opined 

that Belcher was not competent to stand trial.5

 (Id. at 89.) Dr. Parker thought 

there was a possibility Belcher was malingering because of the difference in

Belcher’s behavior between when he was in the general population unit and

when Dr. Parker interviewed him. Also, Belcher’s description of the holograms 

he claimed to see was not typical of someone with schizophrenia, and Belcher’s 

5 “Malinger” is defined as “to pretend or exaggerate incapacity or illness (as to avoid duty or work).”

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malinger (last visited 

December 4, 2019).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 7 of 19

mental health records from the jail showed he campaigned to have his 

medication dosage increased. 

[10] On December 12, 2017, the trial court found Belcher not competent to stand 

trial and committed him to the Indiana Family and Social Services 

Administration (“FSSA”). On June 12, 2018, FSSA notified the trial court that 

Belcher had regained competency to stand trial, and the sheriff returned Belcher 

to the Marion County Jail. 

[11] Dr. Parker met with Belcher again at the Marion County Jail on August 8, 

2018, to perform a sanity evaluation. Belcher asked Dr. Parker, “are you the 

one [sic] said I was lying?” (Id. at 142.) Belcher claimed he was hallucinating 

at the time of the offenses and explained he had been found not responsible by 

reason of insanity in a previous case. Belcher claimed the victims were 

zombies. He described them as “in [his] face.” (Id. at 148.) He also said “[i]t 

looked like they was [sic] about to run in on me.” (Id.) Dr. Parker examined 

Belcher’s jail mental health records and found Belcher reported to the jail 

mental health staff that he last used marijuana on the day of his arrest. Jail staff 

also told Dr. Parker that Belcher did not act agitated while confined in his 

dorm. Ultimately, Dr. Parker concluded with a reasonable degree of medical 

certainty that Belcher was under the influence of voluntary intoxication at the 

time of the offenses and, although he had a mental illness at the time, he had 

been able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 8 of 19

[12] The court also referred Belcher to psychologist Dr. Stephanie Callaway for 

competency and sanity evaluations. She met with Belcher at the Marion 

County Jail on October 1, 2018. During the interview, Belcher denied ever 

using illicit substances, which was inconsistent with his history. Belcher said he 

thought he was on a spaceship at the time of the offenses. He also described 

being surrounded by zombies and feeling like he was going to be attacked. He 

told Dr. Callaway that a voice in his head gave him commands and that he 

needed to follow the commands in order to avoid being attacked. He said he

hit Couch because he “thought she was trying to profile me to an assassination 

agency to get me killed.” (Id. at 177.) He said the voice in his head told him to 

go around the monument and hit Smith, so he did. Belcher also told Dr. 

Callaway that he did not see the police officers until one of the officers 

deployed his taser. Dr. Callaway noted the security footage of Monument 

Circle in the hours before the offenses showed Belcher talking to himself and 

acting agitated. Dr. Callaway concluded with a reasonable degree of 

psychological certainty that Belcher was competent to stand trial. She also 

opined Belcher suffered from a mental disease and lacked the ability to perceive 

the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offenses because of the mental 

disease’s symptoms. 

[13] The State charged Belcher with two counts of Level 3 felony aggravated battery

and one count each of Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury,6

6 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 9 of 19

Level 6 felony battery resulting in moderate bodily injury,7 Class B 

misdemeanor battery, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

The State also filed an information alleging Belcher was a habitual offender. 

The court conducted a bench trial on February 7, 8, and 19, 2019. At trial, 

Belcher did not contest the facts of the offenses, but rather he contended that he 

was not responsible by reason of insanity. Dr. Olive, Dr. Parker, and Dr. 

Callaway each testified regarding their evaluations of Belcher. At the 

conclusion of trial, the court rendered a verdict of guilty but mentally ill and 

entered a judgment of conviction on all counts. The court also determined 

Belcher to be an habitual offender.

[14] At a sentencing hearing on March 20, 2019, the court vacated the Level 6 

felony battery conviction and the Level 5 felony battery conviction. The State 

advocated for an aggravated sentence, noting the harm Smith endured was 

greater than the harm needed to meet the elements of aggravated battery, 

Belcher was on pre-trial release for a criminal trespass charge when he 

committed the crimes, and Belcher had a significant criminal history, including 

four felony convictions and eleven misdemeanor convictions. The State also 

pointed out that Belcher failed to successfully complete probation multiple 

times and refused mental health treatment on previous occasions. Further, 

there were multiple victims in this case and a break in time between Belcher’s 

attacks. Belcher argued his severe mental illness should be considered a 

7 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 10 of 19

mitigator and noted his previous commitments to the Indiana Department of 

Correction have not addressed his mental health problems.

[15] The court found the following aggravating factors: the offenses occurred within 

the presence and hearing of minors, Belcher was on pre-trial release at the time 

of the offenses, and Belcher appeared to lack remorse. The court also stated:

“The only mitigator that I could possibly find is his history of mental illness. 

And I do believe he does have a mental illness.” (Tr. Vol. III at 84.) 

Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of sixteen years for the first count of 

Level 3 felony aggravated battery, enhanced by twenty years due to the finding 

that Belcher was an habitual offender; sixteen years for the second count of 

Level 3 felony aggravated battery; 365 days for Class A misdemeanor resisting 

law enforcement; and 180 days for Class B misdemeanor battery. The court 

ordered all the sentences served consecutively, for an aggregate executed 

sentence of 53 years and 180 days.

Discussion and Decision

1. Sufficiency of the Evidence

[16] Belcher argues there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding 

that he understood and appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct. In order 

to obtain a conviction, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the 

defendant committed the charged offense. Ind. Code § 35-41-4-1. However, 

when the defendant raises the defense of insanity, as in Belcher’s case, the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 11 of 19

burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove the defense by a preponderance 

of the evidence. Id. Indiana Code section 35-41-3-6 provides:

(a) A person is not responsible for having engaged in prohibited 

conduct if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he was 

unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the 

time of the offense.

(b) As used in this section, ‘mental disease or defect’ means a 

severely abnormal mental condition that grossly and 

demonstrably impairs a person’s perception, but the term does 

not include an abnormality manifested by repeated unlawful 

or antisocial conduct.

A mentally ill defendant who fails to establish that he was unable to appreciate 

the wrongfulness of his actions may be found guilty but mentally ill.8

 Galloway 

v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699, 708 (Ind. 2010), reh’g denied.

[17] Belcher “faces a heavy burden” because he is appealing from a negative 

judgment. Patterson v. State, 110 N.E.3d 429, 432 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). As our 

8 As our Indiana Supreme Court has explained:

A verdict of guilty but mentally ill requires an evaluation and treatment of the defendant’s 

mental illness during his or her incarceration ‘in such a manner as is psychiatrically 

indicated,’ but otherwise imposes the same criminal sentence as a standard conviction of 

guilt. Ind. Code § 35-36-2-5(a), (c). By contrast, a verdict of nonresponsibility by reason 

of insanity may result in the defendant’s civil commitment if the trial court finds by clear 

and convincing evidence that the defendant is mentally ill and either dangerous or 

gravely disabled. I.C. § 35-36-2-4.

Barcroft v. State, 111 N.E.3d 997, 1002 n.2 (Ind. 2018).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 12 of 19

Indiana Supreme Court has explained, “[w]hether or not a defendant can 

appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct is a question for the trier of fact.” 

Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (Ind. 2004). Consequently, “we will 

reverse only when the evidence is without conflict and leads only to the 

conclusion that the defendant was insane when the crime was committed.” Id. 

We will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses, and 

we will consider the evidence and make all reasonable and logical inferences in 

the light most favorable to the verdict. Id. We note that “[o]pinion testimony 

from psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental-health experts is central to a 

determination of insanity.” Barcroft v. State, 111 N.E.3d 997, 1003 (Ind. 2018). 

Their specialized knowledge and training allow them to provide insight and 

assist the factfinder in making a sensible and educated determination regarding 

the defendant’s mental condition. Id. However, “[e]ven when experts are 

unanimous in their opinion, the factfinder may discredit their testimony—or 

disregard it altogether—and rely instead on other probative evidence from 

which to infer the defendant’s sanity.” Id.

[18] There was not unanimous credible, expert testimony that Belcher did not 

appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of these offenses. While 

two of the doctors who evaluated Belcher opined that Belcher did not 

appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions, Dr. Parker determined to a 

reasonable degree of medical certainty that Belcher did appreciate the 

wrongfulness of his actions. Dr. Parker noted Belcher’s self-report of marijuana 

use. Also, Belcher’s behavior during his interviews with Dr. Parker differed 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 13 of 19

from Belcher’s behavior while in the jail. Belcher became angry with Dr. 

Parker during both interviews, accused Dr. Parker of thinking he was lying in 

his second interview, and insisted he was hallucinating at the time of the 

offenses. 

[19] Belcher discounts Dr. Parker’s conclusion and the trial court’s finding that 

Belcher was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the offenses because 

the only indication of marijuana use on the day of the offenses is Belcher’s selfreport to jail mental health staff when he was returned to the jail from 

Logansport State Hospital. Belcher notes that no toxicology test occurred upon 

Belcher’s admission to the jail. However, Belcher’s self-report is evidence in the 

record from which the trial court could have determined Belcher was under the 

influence of marijuana at the time of the offense, and we will not reweigh the 

evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. See Barcroft, 111 

N.E.3d at 1008 (holding evidence of defendant’s demeanor as well as flaws in 

expert opinion testimony and absence of history of mental illness was sufficient 

to support inference of sanity).

[20] Belcher told Dr. Callaway that a voice inside his head commanded him to 

attack Couch and Smith. However, he did not mention receiving auditory 

commands at the time of the offenses to either of the previous two doctors who 

evaluated him. Belcher also told each doctor that he had previously been found 

not responsible by reason of insanity in another criminal case and suggested the 

same result should be reached in the case at bar. On examination by the court, 

Dr. Olive acknowledged that some people with schizophrenia will sometimes 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 14 of 19

use their knowledge of the illness to exaggerate their symptoms for their own 

perceived benefit. Consequently, the trial court’s decision to discount the 

conclusions of Dr. Olive and Dr. Callaway was not unreasonable. See 

Thompson, 804 N.E.2d at 1150 (holding evidence supported trial court’s finding 

that defendant was guilty but mentally ill despite expert witness opinions that 

defendant did not appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions at the time of the 

offenses).

[21] Additionally, other evidence in the record suggests Belcher appreciated the 

wrongfulness of his actions. He attempted to evade arrest. He walked away 

from the responding police officers and had the presence of mind to claim the 

IMPD, rather than the State Police, had jurisdiction over Monument Circle. 

Belcher also was sufficiently aware of his surroundings to pick vulnerable 

victims. He initiated contact with and attacked both Smith and Couch, but 

Belcher walked away when other people intervened and confronted him.

Therefore, sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s rejection of Belcher’s 

insanity defense. See Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1088 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2011) (holding evidence was sufficient to support jury verdict that defendant 

was not insane at time of offenses), trans. denied.

2. Abuse of Discretion

[22] Sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we 

review such decisions only for an abuse of discretion. Morrell v. State, 118 

N.E.3d 793, 796 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), clarified on reh’g on other grounds, 121 

N.E.3d 577 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. “An abuse of discretion occurs if 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 15 of 19

the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and 

circumstances.” Allen v. State, 875 N.E.2d 783, 788 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). 

When a trial court imposes a felony sentence, it is required to issue a sentencing 

statement “that includes a reasonably detailed recitation of the trial court’s 

reasons for the sentence imposed.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 484-85 

(Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g on other grounds, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). If the 

court finds aggravating or mitigating circumstances, “the statement must 

identify all significant mitigating and aggravating circumstances and explain 

why each circumstance has been determined to be mitigating or aggravating.” 

Id. at 490. A trial court may abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence by 

failing to enter a sentencing statement, identifying aggravating and mitigating 

factors the record does not support, omitting reasons clearly supported in the 

record and advanced for consideration, or stating reasons for sentence that are 

improper as a matter of law. Id. at 490-91.

[23] Belcher argues the trial court’s sentencing statement does not demonstrate 

consideration of the mitigating weight attributable to his mental illness. He 

argues he lacks the ability to control his behavior because of his mental illness. 

He also claims his ability to function is limited as a result of his longstanding

mental illness and argues his illness led him to commit these offenses. 

[24] “The trial court is not obligated to accept the defendant’s arguments as to what 

constitutes a mitigating factor. Nor is the court required to give the same 

weight to proffered mitigating factors as the defendant does.” Comer v. State, 

839 N.E.2d 721, 728 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (internal citation and quotation 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 16 of 19

marks omitted), trans. denied. However, when sentencing a guilty but mentally 

ill defendant, the trial court “should at a minimum carefully consider on the 

record what mitigating weight, if any, to accord to any evidence of mental 

illness[.]” Weeks v. State, 697 N.E.2d 28, 30 (Ind. 1998). 

[25] The trial court’s sentencing statement indicates it considered Belcher’s mental 

health. In fact, the trial court identified Belcher’s mental illness as the “only 

mitigator that I could possibly find[.]” (Tr. Vol. III at 84.) It noted that Belcher 

failed to take advantage of help that had been offered in the past and explained 

“that each and every time [Belcher] is given the opportunity by some court for 

rehabilitation through anger control classes, domestic violence classes, any kind 

of alternative to simply being locked up that he’s failed. And he’s generally 

failed by committing a new offense.” (Id. at 81.) The court also observed that 

Belcher’s behavior during trial shows his illness can be managed by medication. 

Therefore, the trial court considered Belcher’s mental illness and its implicit 

decision not to give his mental illness much mitigating weight was not an abuse 

of discretion. See Prowell v. State, 787 N.E.2d 997, 1005 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)

(holding trial court did not abuse its discretion when it considered but assigned 

minimal mitigating weight to defendant’s mental illness), trans. denied.

3. Appropriateness of Sentence 

[26] We “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of 

the trial court’s decision, [we find] the sentence is inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Ind. App. R. 7(B). 

Our role in reviewing a sentence pursuant to Appellate Rule 7(B) “should be to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 17 of 19

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). “The defendant bears the burden of persuading 

this court that his or her sentence is inappropriate.” Kunberger v. State, 46 

N.E.3d 966, 972 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “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.” Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

[27] When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting 

point for determining the appropriateness of a sentence. Anglemyer v. State, 868 

N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). A 

Level 3 felony is punishable by imprisonment for a fixed term between three 

years and sixteen years, with an advisory sentence of nine years. Ind. Code § 

35-50-2-5. A finding that a defendant is an habitual offender allows the court to 

enhance the defendant’s sentence by an additional six to twenty years, Ind. 

Code § 35-50-2-8, and the trial court added twenty years to the first of Belcher’s 

Level 3 felony sentences. A person convicted of a Class A misdemeanor may 

be sentenced to a fixed term of not more than one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2. 

Also, the maximum sentence for a Class B misdemeanor is 180 days. Ind. 

Code § 35-50-3-3. Fifty-three years and 180 days is the maximum sentence 

Belcher could have received. In fact, the trial court observed that Belcher’s 

sentence represents “the most time that I can give him.” (Tr. Vol. III at 86.) 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 18 of 19

[28] The nature of Belcher’s offenses is particularly troubling. Belcher’s assaults on 

Smith and Crouch were unprovoked, violent, and senseless. Belcher attacked 

the victims in public and in front of children. The victims were strangers to 

Belcher, out-of-town visitors admiring one of Indianapolis’ signature 

attractions. The victims sustained severe injuries, with Smith’s injuries

ultimately proving fatal. Crouch temporarily lost consciousness and required 

extensive medical care to recover from her injuries. Further, Farah testified to 

the emotional impact he suffered as a result of watching Belcher attack Smith, 

and Smith’s family and friends highlighted for the court the pain Smith’s loss 

caused them. The nature of Belcher’s offenses merits a sentence above the 

advisory. See Reis v. State, 88 N.E.3d 1099, 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (holding 

egregious nature of defendant’s offense supported near-maximum sentence).

[29] “When considering the character of the offender, one relevant fact is the 

defendant’s criminal history. The significance of criminal history varies based 

on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current 

offense.” Maffett v. State, 113 N.E.3d 278, 286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (internal 

citation omitted). We note Belcher’s significant criminal history. Prior to the 

case at bar, Belcher accumulated four felony and eleven misdemeanor 

convictions, some of which were violent crimes. For example, Belcher has 

multiple convictions of Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury

and a conviction of Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury. 

Thus, we cannot say Belcher’s sentence is inappropriate given his character. See 

Shinkle v. State, 129 N.E.3d 212, 217-18 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (holding sentence 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-830 | December 20, 2019 Page 19 of 19

was not inappropriate and observing that the defendant’s “extensive criminal 

history . . . reflects poorly on his character”), trans. denied. 

Conclusion

[30] Sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s verdict of guilty but mentally ill. It 

is undisputed that Belcher suffers from a mental illness. However, there is 

sufficient evidence that he appreciated the wrongfulness of his actions. Further, 

the trial court did not abuse its discretion at sentencing by considering but 

giving little weight to Belcher’s history of mental illness, and we cannot say that 

Belcher’s sentence is inappropriate given the nature of his offenses and his 

character. Consequently, we affirm the trial court. 

[31] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Bailey, J., concur.