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:

KRISTIN A. MULHOLLAND GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Office of the Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana

Crown Point, Indiana

MICHAEL GENE WORDEN

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

URIAH S. SWELFER, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 45A05-1205-CR-260

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE LAKE SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Clarence D. Murray, Judge

Cause No. 45G02-0902-FB-16

December 13, 2012

MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BARNES, Judge
2

Case Summary

Uriah Swelfer appeals his seven-year sentence for two counts of Class C felony 

battery and one count of Class D felony criminal mischief. We affirm.

Issue

Swelfer raises one issue, which we restate as whether his seven-year executed 

sentence is inappropriate.

Facts

On September 27, 2008, Swelfer was at his home with his brother, Aaron Swelfer, 

and several other people, including Colleen Hanley. Jonathan Cox and Jonathan Jatho 

went to the Swelfer home to pick up Hanley. Cox and Aaron got into an argument and 

began to fight. Eventually, all of the men present, including Swelfer, got into a fight. 

During the fight, Aaron knocked Jatho unconscious, and Swelfer kicked and stomped 

Jatho in the head multiple times as he lay on the ground. Swelfer hit Cox’s vehicle with a 

hammer, damaging the hood, trunk, and taillights. 

Swelfer was charged with one count of Class B felony aggravated battery, five 

counts of Class C felony battery, and one count of Class D felony criminal mischief. On 

February 16, 2002, Swelfer agreed to plead guilty to one count of Class C felony battery 

relating to Jatho, one count of Class C felony battery relating to Cox, and one count of 

Class D felony criminal mischief. The plea agreement called for the sentences to be 

served concurrently and for the State to dismiss the remaining charges. 

After a sentencing hearing, the trial court found Swelfer’s criminal history and 

violent personality to be aggravators and his guilty plea to be a mitigator. Although the 
3

trial court considered his guilty plea as a mitigator, it declined to consider Swelfer’s 

mental health issues as mitigating. The trial court sentenced him to seven years on each 

of the Class C battery charges and to two years on the Class D felony criminal mischief 

charge. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently for a total 

sentence of seven years, and the sentence was statutorily required to be served 

consecutively to another unrelated sentence. Swelfer now appeals.

Analysis

Swelfer argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and his character.1 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 offenses 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 

 

1

 The State suggests that Swelfer challenges his sentence as an abuse of discretion and as being 

inappropriate. We believe, however, that Swelfer’s assessment of the weight that should be given to his 

mental health and criminal history are in the context of our review of his sentence for appropriateness and 

not a separate challenge to the trial court’s exercise of its discretion. 
4

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).

Swelfer argues that his character does not warrant the seven-year sentence namely 

because of his mental health issues and because his criminal history is mostly unrelated to 

the current offense. We are not persuaded. Although the pre-sentence investigation 

report indicates that Swelfer was diagnosed with “[a]djustment disorder with depressed 

mood” after a 2007 fight that left him blind in one eye, in the same report, Swelfer denied 

suffering from any mental health conditions. App. Vol. II p. 96. The report also 

indicates that therapy sessions were discontinued because Swelfer did not keep scheduled 

appointments or respond to letters. Further, as the trial court pointed out at the 

sentencing hearing, no expert testimony was offered at the sentencing hearing linking 

Swelfer’s purported depression to the commission of this offense. As such, contrary to 

Swelfer’s assertion, we cannot conclude that Swelfer’s mental condition should be 
5

considered a significant mitigating circumstance in evaluating the appropriateness of his 

sentence. 

Likewise, we are not persuaded that Swelfer’s criminal history reflects positively 

on his character. Swelfer’s criminal history includes multiple juvenile adjudications and

misdemeanor convictions and three felony convictions. Even if much of his criminal 

history is alcohol-related, his criminal history apparently involved the battery of two 

police officers. At the very least, Swelfer’s criminal history shows a repeated disregard 

for the law and does not reflect positively on his character. Finally, although Swelfer did 

plead guilty, several charges, including a Class B felony battery charge, were dismissed 

in exchange for his guilty plea. In sum, Swelfer has not convinced us that his character 

warrants revision of his sentence.

Moreover, the nature of this offense is particularly egregious. Swelfer kicked and 

stomped on Jatho multiple times as he lay unconscious on the ground. According to 

Jatho’s mother’s testimony at the sentencing hearing, Jatho’s face was “no longer 

attached to his skull,” and he had to undergo a seven and half-hour surgery during which 

five titanium plates were placed in his face permanently. Tr. p. 7. Based on the nature of 

the offense and Swelfer’s character, he has not established that the seven-year executed 

sentence for two counts of Class C felony battery and one count of Class D felony 

criminal mischief is inappropriate. 

Conclusion

Swelfer has not established that his seven-year sentence is inappropriate. We 

affirm.
6

Affirmed.

BAKER, J., and RILEY, J., concur.