Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1504-CR-204 | December 15, 2015 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

Timothy P. Broden

Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Angela N. Sanchez

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

James L. Reynolds, Jr.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

December 15, 2015

Court of Appeals Cause No.

79A02-1504-CR-204

Appeal from the Tippecanoe 

Superior Court

The Honorable Sean M. Persin, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

79D05-1410-F6-123

Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1504-CR-204 | December 15, 2015 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] James Reynolds, Jr., appeals his convictions for Level 6 felony residential entry 

and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief and his two-and-one-half-year 

sentence for the offenses. We affirm in part and vacate in part. 

Issues

[2] Reynolds raises two issues, which we restate as:

I. whether his convictions violate double 

jeopardy principles; and

II. whether his sentence is inappropriate.

Facts

[3] Reynolds was Lori Roberts’s longtime boyfriend, and the couple lived together. 

Early in the morning on October 27, 2014, Roberts was frustrated that 

Reynolds would not turn his music down and walked to a friend’s nearby 

house. Reynolds then went to the house looking for Roberts, and she asked 

him to leave. Reynolds left, but he returned a few minutes later. He knocked 

on the glass door to the porch. When no one answered the door, he broke the 

glass, went into the porch, and then went into Roberts’s friend’s house. Roberts 

and Reynolds fought, and Roberts’s friend called 911.

[4] The State charged Reynolds with Level 6 felony residential entry, Level 6 

felony criminal confinement, Class B misdemeanor battery, and Class A 

misdemeanor criminal mischief for breaking the glass door. A jury found 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1504-CR-204 | December 15, 2015 Page 3 of 7

Reynolds guilty of the residential entry and criminal mischief charges. At 

sentencing, the trial court entered judgments of conviction on both counts and 

sentenced Reynolds to two-and-one-half years for the residential entry and to 

180 days for the criminal mischief. Because of double jeopardy concerns, the 

trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. The trial court 

ordered Reynolds to serve one year executed and suspended the remainder of 

the sentence to unsupervised probation at a level determined by the Tippecanoe 

County Community Corrections. Reynolds now appeals. 

Analysis

I. Double Jeopardy

[5] Reynolds argues that his convictions for residential entry and criminal mischief 

are based on the same evidentiary facts—him breaking the glass door—and 

violate the Indiana Constitution’s prohibition against double jeopardy. The 

State does not dispute this claim and asserts that the appropriate remedy is to 

vacate one of the convictions. Accordingly, we conclude the criminal mischief

conviction must be vacated. 

II. Sentencing

[6] Reynolds also argues that his two-and-one-half-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 Appellate Rule 7(B) does not require us to be 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1504-CR-204 | December 15, 2015 Page 4 of 7

“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.

[7] The principal role of Appellate 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 Appellate 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).

[8] Reynolds contends that, although the trial court suspended one-and-one-half 

years of his sentence, it is tantamount to a two-and-one-half year executed 

sentence because participation in a community corrections program was a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1504-CR-204 | December 15, 2015 Page 5 of 7

condition of probation. In support of this argument, Reynolds relies on a 

concurring in result opinion in Shaffer v. State, 755 N.E.2d 1193 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2001). In her concurring opinion, Judge Vaidik concluded “that placement in 

community corrections programs if it is a condition of probation must also be 

considered suspended time. However, I find that direct placement in 

community corrections is a different beast than probation and should be treated 

accordingly.” Shaffer, 755 N.E.2d at 1198 (Vaidik, J., concurring). 

[9] Even if this position had been adopted by the majority in Shaffer, Reynolds 

provides us with no analysis of the current statutory scheme as it relates to 

community corrections and suspended sentences. Moreover, the trial court’s 

written sentencing order specified “Defendant is to serve one (1) year executed 

in Count I in the Indiana Department of Corrections . . . . The defendant’s 

sentence calls for an executed term of imprisonment of 365 days.” App. p. 12. 

The order further provides, “Defendant is placed on UNSUPERVISED 

PROBATION for a period of 1 1⁄2 years on the following terms . . . 1 1⁄2 years on 

unsupervised probation to be served at a level to be determined by the 

Tippecanoe County Community Corrections[.]” Id. Thus, the community 

corrections assignment was a condition of probation, which was ordered as part 

of the suspended sentence. 

[10] Further, at the sentencing hearing, the trial court explained that this 

arrangement would give Reynolds a chance to “get out,” to go to school, and to 

work. Tr. p 227. We are not convinced that Reynolds’s sentence is the 

equivalent of a two-and-one-half-year executed sentence. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1504-CR-204 | December 15, 2015 Page 6 of 7

[11] Regarding the nature of the offense, Reynolds ignored Roberts’s request to 

leave and, when no one answered the door, he broke the glass door, causing it 

to shatter. He then entered Roberts’s friend’s home, and Reynolds and Roberts 

argued, which resulted in Roberts’s friend calling 911. Although Roberts used 

Reynolds’s money to have the door repaired, we cannot say that the nature of 

the offense necessitates a reduction of Reynolds’s sentence. 

[12] As for his character, Reynolds has an extensive criminal history including at 

least seven misdemeanor convictions and five felony convictions as well as four 

other unspecified convictions in Illinois and a felony federal firearms 

conviction. Many other charges have been filed and dismissed against 

Reynolds, showing near constant contact with the criminal justice system since 

1985. Also troubling is the trial court’s assessment that Reynolds did not think 

the incident was “a big deal” and still thinks “it’s all a big accident.” Tr. p. 226. 

Given his criminal history and the cavalier attitude about his most recent

criminal activity, Reynolds has not established that his sentence is 

inappropriate. 

Conclusion

[13] Reynolds’s criminal mischief conviction violates double jeopardy principles and 

must be vacated. However, Reynolds has not shown that his sentence is 

inappropriate. We affirm in part and vacate in part.

[14] Affirmed in part and vacated in part.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1504-CR-204 | December 15, 2015 Page 7 of 7

Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.