Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-866 | October 31, 2019 Page 1 of 6

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

John Andrew Goodridge

Evansville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General

Megan M. Smith

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Christopher Biggs,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

October 31, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-866

Appeal from the Vanderburgh 

Circuit Court

The Honorable Carl A. Heldt, 

Senior Judge

The Honorable Michael J. Cox, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

82C01-1809-F5-6235

Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-866 | October 31, 2019 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary

[1] Following a guilty plea, Christopher Biggs was sentenced to 1000 days executed 

for level 5 felony failure to register as a sex offender. He appeals his sentence 

pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Finding that he has failed to meet his 

burden of demonstrating that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature 

of the offense and his character, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2008, Biggs was convicted of class D felony sexual battery. As a result of his 

conviction, he was required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Indiana 

Code Section 11-8-8-17. He executed the registration forms acknowledging his 

awareness of his obligations and duties to register and to re-register in the event 

of an address change. In 2010, 2012, and 2017, he accumulated felony 

convictions for failure to register as required by the statute. In August 2018, a 

law enforcement officer went to Biggs’s most recent registered address and was 

informed by the current residents that Biggs had moved out three months 

before. Biggs’s whereabouts were unknown until September 14, 2018, when he 

was arrested for failure to notify the sheriff’s department of his address change 

within seventy-two hours of such change. Ind. Code § 11-8-8-11.

[3] The State charged Biggs with level 5 felony failure to register as a sex or violent 

offender (with prior conviction for the same), level 6 felony failure to register as 

a sex or violent offender, and a habitual offender enhancement. Biggs agreed to 

plead guilty, without a written plea agreement, to the level 5 and level 6 felonies 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-866 | October 31, 2019 Page 3 of 6

in exchange for the dismissal of the habitual offender count. The trial court 

merged the level 6 felony conviction and entered judgment only on the level 5 

felony count. The court sentenced Biggs to 1000 days executed. Biggs now 

appeals his sentence. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

Discussion and Decision

[4] Biggs asks that we reduce his sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), 

which states that we “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due 

consideration of the trial court’s decision, [this] Court finds that the sentence is 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the 

offender.” “Sentencing is principally a discretionary function in which the trial 

court’s judgment should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 

N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008). When a defendant requests appellate review 

and revision of his sentence, we have the power to affirm or reduce the 

sentence. Akard v. State, 937 N.E.2d 811, 813 (Ind. 2010). In conducting our 

review, our principal role is to leaven the outliers, focusing on the length of the 

sentence and how it is to be served. Bess v. State, 58 N.E.3d 174, 175 (Ind. 

2016); Foutch v. State, 53 N.E.3d 577, 580 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). We do “not 

look to see whether the defendant’s sentence is appropriate or if another 

sentence might be more appropriate; rather, the test is whether the sentence is 

‘inappropriate.’” Id. at 581 (quoting Barker v. State, 994 N.E.2d 306, 315 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied (2014)). The defendant bears the burden of 

persuading this Court that his sentence meets the inappropriateness standard. 

Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1174, 1181 (Ind. 2016). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-866 | October 31, 2019 Page 4 of 6

[5] In considering the nature of Biggs’s offenses, “the advisory sentence is the 

starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence.” Green v. 

State, 65 N.E.3d 620, 637-38 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied (2017). Biggs

was convicted of level 5 felony failure to register as a sex or violent offender. 

See Ind. Code § 11-8-8-17(a) (“A sex or violent offender who knowingly or 

intentionally ... fails to register” when, how, and where the statute requires, 

“makes a material misstatement or omission while registering,” or “does not 

reside at [his] registered address or location” commits a level 6 felony). Biggs’s

previous unrelated convictions for failure to register as a sex offender account 

for the elevation of his current offense from a level 6 felony to a level 5 felony. 

See Ind. Code § 11-8-8-17(b) (failure to register as a sex offender is level 5 felony 

if offender has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under the same 

section). A level 5 felony carries a sentencing range of one to six years with an 

advisory term of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6. 

[6] Here, Biggs was sentenced to 1000 days, or approximately 2.74 years. “[A]

defendant bears a particularly heavy burden in persuading us that his sentence 

is inappropriate when the trial court imposes the advisory sentence.” Fernbach 

v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. Biggs’s 

burden is even greater here, because his sentence is approximately three months 

below the advisory term. He has not met that heavy burden. The only relevant 

detail of his status offense is that he moved and did not register his change of 

address for three months, well past the seventy-two-hour window for doing so.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-866 | October 31, 2019 Page 5 of 6

Ind. Code § 11-8-8-11. The nature of Biggs’s offense simply does not militate 

toward a reduced sentence. 

[7] Nor does Biggs’s character. We conduct our review of his character by 

engaging in a broad consideration of his qualities. Aslinger v. State, 2 N.E.3d 84, 

95 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), clarified on other grounds on reh’g, 11 N.E.3d 571. 

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

defendant’s criminal history.” Garcia v. State, 47 N.E.3d 1249, 1251 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2015), trans. denied (2016). Biggs’s criminal record is extensive and spans 

three decades. In addition to his four felony convictions for failure to register as 

a sex offender, he has convictions for class D felony sexual battery (which 

triggered the registration requirement), class C felony burglary, class D felony 

theft, and misdemeanor convictions for sexual battery, conversion, marijuana 

possession, false informing, and driving without a license. He has one 

probation revocation, and the probation department rated him as a high risk to 

re-offend. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 32. His guilty plea saved the State the 

expense of a trial, but it also benefited Biggs in the form of a dismissal of his 

habitual offender count.

[8] To the extent that Biggs relies on his low mental aptitude scores as an excuse or 

explanation for his failure to register as required by statute, we note that the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-866 | October 31, 2019 Page 6 of 6

trial court read the psychologist’s report provided by Biggs,

1 considered the 

information during sentencing, and concluded that Biggs is “low functioning.” 

Tr. Vol. 2 at 18. However, the court also emphasized the psychologist’s 

conclusion that Biggs “is capable of understanding the difference between right 

and wrong and obeying the rules.” Id. While we sympathize with those who 

suffer from attention deficits, we reject Biggs’s characterization of his 1000-day

sentence as a “de facto sentence of ‘life imprisonment on an installment plan.’” 

Appellant’s Br. at 12. Biggs has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that 

his sentence is inappropriate. Consequently, we affirm.

[9] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.

1

 Neither the psychologist’s report nor any other documents pertaining to Biggs’s mental diagnosis is 

included in the record below as an exhibit or in the presentence investigation report. As such, we have no 

basis for including them in our review, except for certain statements included in the sentencing transcript.