Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1704-CR-949 | December 22, 2017 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

Megan B. Quirk

Muncie, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Indiana Attorney General

Caryn N. Szyper

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

William O. Jackson, Jr.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

December 22, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A02-1704-CR-949

Appeal from the Delaware Circuit 

Court.

The Honorable Marianne Vorhees, 

Judge.

Trial Court Cause No. 

18C01-1701-F5-4

Sharpnack, Senior Judge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1704-CR-949 | December 22, 2017 Page 2 of 7

Statement of the Case

[1] William O. Jackson, Jr., appeals, contending that his advisory sentence of three 

years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction was inappropriate for 

his conviction of Level 5 felony domestic battery.1 We affirm.

Issue

[2] Jackson presents the following issue for our review: whether his executed 

sentence of three years is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and 

the character of the offender.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Beginning on the evening of December 26, 2016, and continuing into the early 

morning hours of December 27, 2016, Jackson and his girlfriend of more than 

six years, D.F., were embroiled in verbal arguments at their home. Jackson, 

who was on pretrial, electronic, home detention for several pending felony 

charges in another matter, had been drinking alcohol and using cocaine and 

heroin. 

[4] At approximately 8:30 p.m., D.F. threw a salt shaker at Jackson and picked up

a hammer to threaten him. D.F.’s cousin, who was present, intervened to calm 

the situation before it escalated. Police officers were called and dispatched to 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(c)(1) (2016). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1704-CR-949 | December 22, 2017 Page 3 of 7

the residence. Neither Jackson nor D.F. exhibited any signs of physical injury 

and each refused to leave the house. After that, the officers left the residence.

[5] However, Jackson and D.F. continued arguing after the officers left. At some 

point, Jackson told D.F. that he “hated her.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 58. D.F. put on 

her boots and grabbed her coat to leave the house. When she went to the door,

Jackson struck her in the back of the head with the base of a telephone three or 

four times, causing D.F.’s head to bleed profusely. Jackson then threatened

D.F. by saying that he was going to disfigure her. After hearing that, D.F. ran 

to her mother’s house, which was nearby, and D.F.’s sister drove her to Ball 

Memorial Hospital for treatment. 

[6] Meanwhile, at 2:43 a.m., officers were dispatched to D.F. and Jackson’s 

residence following an uncompleted call to 911. D.F. was no longer at the 

house when the officers arrived. Jackson answered the door and had no 

observable signs of injuries. He explained to officers that he and D.F. had been 

in a verbal altercation and that she had left with a friend. He claimed that the 

officers were not needed at the residence.

[7] Approximately twenty minutes later, however, at 3:04 a.m., officers were 

dispatched to the hospital where they found D.F. with a towel soaked in a red 

substance covering her head. After removing the towel, officers observed a 

large knot about the size of a golf ball on D.F.’s head that was actively bleeding. 

Officers photographed D.F.’s injury. She told them that she was the victim of a 

battery and that she wanted to make a report. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1704-CR-949 | December 22, 2017 Page 4 of 7

[8] Officers then returned to D.F. and Jackson’s residence where they found blood 

on the porch, the wall, the couch, and the base of the telephone. They also 

recovered D.F.’s coat, which was soaked with blood.

[9] The State charged Jackson with class A misdemeanor domestic battery, with a 

Level 5 felony enhancement due to Jackson’s prior domestic battery conviction. 

Jackson’s jury trial was bifurcated and, at the conclusion of both phases, he was 

found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Jackson to the advisory term 

of three years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction with the 

recommendation that he be placed in purposeful incarceration through the 

Therapeutic Community Program. Jackson now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Jackson argues that his advisory sentence of three years executed in the 

Department of Correction with a recommendation that he placed in purposeful 

incarceration through the Therapeutic Community Program, is inappropriate in 

light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. 

[11] Although Jackson attempts to argue that his sentencing placement–an executed 

sentence in the Department of Correction as opposed to probation–was 

inappropriate; it represents a blending of arguments involving an abuse of 

discretion in sentencing, and an inappropriate sentence. Jackson has failed to 

present a cogent argument in terms of an abuse of discretion. Therefore, we 

address his sentencing challenge under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

[12] Our Supreme Court has set forth the standard of review as follows:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1704-CR-949 | December 22, 2017 Page 5 of 7

Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides, ‘[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.’ The principal role of appellate review 

should be to attempt to leaven the outliers . . . but not achieve a 

perceived “correct” result in each case. Defendant has the 

burden to persuade us that the sentence imposed by the trial 

court is inappropriate.

Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017).

[13] In considering the nature of Jackson’s offenses, the advisory sentence is 

the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence. 

Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 

218. When determining the appropriateness of a sentence that deviates from 

an advisory sentence, we consider whether there is anything more or less 

egregious about the offense as committed by the defendant that “makes it 

different from the typical offense accounted for by the legislature when it set 

the advisory sentence.” Holloway v. State, 950 N.E.2d 803, 807 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2011).

[14] Turning to the nature of Jackson’s offense, the facts reveal that after arguing 

with D.F., such that police officers were called to the house, they continued the 

verbal altercation. When Jackson told D.F. that he hated her, she put on her 

boots and grabbed her coat in an effort to leave the house. Jackson responded 

by repeatedly striking D.F. on the back of the head with the base of a telephone. 

She developed a wound that was the size of a golf ball from which she bled 

profusely. Jackson then told her that he was going to disfigure her. D.F. ran to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1704-CR-949 | December 22, 2017 Page 6 of 7

her mother’s house, which was nearby, after which her sister took her to the 

hospital for treatment of her injuries. 

[15] Nothing about Jackson’s argument regarding the nature of the offense suggests 

that a downward revision in his sentence is warranted.

[16] Turning to Jackson’s character, we also conclude that there is nothing in his 

character warranting anything less than an advisory sentence executed in the 

Department of Correction. Jackson’s criminal history, which is significant, 

includes five prior felonies and three domestic battery offenses committed 

against the same victim. 

[17] Additionally, when Jackson committed the instant offense he was released on 

pretrial, electronic, home detention for pending felony charges in a different 

case. He had been using alcohol, heroin, and cocaine at home at the time he 

committed his current offense. Further, he admitted that he had used heroin in 

jail prior to his presentence investigation interview and admitted to using drugs 

regularly while on home detention. Jackson has not sought treatment for his 

drug addiction, which has been an issue for him since approximately 1992, 

despite having opportunities for rehabilitation.

[18] When police officers arrived at the house, Jackson claimed that nothing more 

than a verbal altercation had continued between the two. He further 

downplayed the incident by also stating that D.F. had left with a friend. 

Because officers did not observe any injuries on Jackson, they left the scene.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1704-CR-949 | December 22, 2017 Page 7 of 7

[19] The jury was in the best position to determine what weight to give to D.F.’s 

participation in the ongoing argument, and chose to believe her version in 

entering a verdict against Jackson. Jackson’s attempts to introduce her actions 

into our review are not appropriate. It is his character and the nature of his 

offense against her that is subject to our review.

[20] Jackson has not established that his advisory sentence with opportunities to 

improve himself and potentially receive sentence modification are inappropriate 

in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.

Conclusion

[21] In light of the foregoing, the trial court’s decision is affirmed.

[22] Affirmed. 

May, J., and Altice, J., concur.