Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01-1512-CR-2231 | March 16, 2017 Page 1 of 8

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

G. Allen Lidy

Mooresville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Michael Gene Worden

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jonathan Harness,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

March 16, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

55A01-1512-CR-2231

Appeal from the Morgan Superior 

Court.

The Honorable Jane Spencer 

Craney, Judge.

Cause No. 55D03-1402-FA-274

Barteau, Senior Judge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01-1512-CR-2231 | March 16, 2017 Page 2 of 8

Statement of the Case

[1] Jonathan Harness appeals from his guilty plea to two counts of Class C felony 

battery with serious bodily injury,1

contending that his sentence is inappropriate 

and the trial court abused its discretion in imposing certain conditions of 

probation. We affirm. 

Issues

[2] Harness raises the following restated issues for our review:

I. Whether his sentence is inappropriate; and

II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it required 

him to submit to polygraph examinations as a condition of his 

probation.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Harness had a tumultuous and abusive childhood. He married, and he and his 

wife had one biological son. At some point in their marriage, the couple 

decided to adopt additional children. 

[4] J.H. and A.H. are sisters who were in foster care for approximately three years. 

Harness and his wife adopted J.H. and A.H., as well as their siblings. Prior to 

being adopted, both J.H. and A.H. had been abused sexually, physically, and 

 

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(a)(3) (2012)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01-1512-CR-2231 | March 16, 2017 Page 3 of 8

mentally. A.H. struggled with behavioral and mental problems that required 

therapy sessions. 

[5] The charging information filed against Harness listed nineteen criminal 

offenses, allegedly perpetrated upon A.H. and J.H. On July 15, 2015, the 

parties entered into a plea agreement, and Harness agreed to plead guilty to two 

counts of Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury involving 

A.H. As part of the plea agreement, the State agreed to dismiss all other 

counts, to not file additional counts involving Harness’s adopted daughters, and 

to allow Harness’s wife to plead to an amended charge of Class B misdemeanor 

failure to report child abuse. 

[6] The facts surrounding the two counts of Class C felony battery are that on one 

occasion, Harness struck A.H. in the forehead and pushed her into a wall, 

causing her to lose consciousness. On another occasion, Harness threw A.H. 

into a wall that contained a protruding nail. The incidents left A.H. with 

permanent scars.

[7] Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced Harness to concurrent sentences 

of six years’ imprisonment, with four years executed and two years suspended 

to probation. Harness appeals. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01-1512-CR-2231 | March 16, 2017 Page 4 of 8

Discussion and Decision

I. Inappropriateness of Sentence

[8] Harness argues that his six-year sentence, with four years executed and two 

years suspended to probation, is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and his character. Harness argues his sentence is inappropriate because 

of the mitigating factors found by the trial court, his low risk to reoffend, and 

his eligibility to serve his sentence on home detention. He seeks resentencing to 

a total of six years, with two years executed and four years suspended to 

probation.

[9] We may revise a sentence if it is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and the character of the offender.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). Whether 

the reviewing court regards a sentence as inappropriate turns on a “sense of 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.” Cardwell v. 

State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). This Court “must give ‘deference to a 

trial court’s sentencing decision, both because Rule 7(B) requires us to give due 

consideration to that decision and because we understand and recognize the 

unique perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.’” Gil v. State,

988 N.E.2d 1231, 1237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Stewart v. State, 866 

N.E.2d 858, 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)). Harness bears the burden of persuading

us that his sentence is inappropriate. Reid v. State, 876 N.E.2d 1114, 1116 (Ind.

2007). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01-1512-CR-2231 | March 16, 2017 Page 5 of 8

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

point to determine the appropriateness of a sentence. See Anglemyer v. State, 868 

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

Harness pleaded guilty to two counts of Class C felony battery. The sentencing 

range for a Class C felony was “a fixed term of between two (2) and eight (8) 

years, with the advisory sentence being four (4) years.” Ind. Code § 35-50-2-

6(a) (2005). The trial court found as an aggravator that Harness was in a 

position of care, custody, and control of his daughter, A.H. The court imposed 

concurrent six-year sentences for both of Harness’s convictions, which is above 

the advisory sentence but below the maximum advised by the General 

Assembly.

[11] Details of the nature of Harness’s offenses are limited to the sparse facts 

presented during his sentencing hearing, and the contents of his Appendix. 

Nevertheless, his first offense involved striking his daughter and pushing her 

into a wall, causing her to lose consciousness and resulting in a bump on the 

back of her head and a permanent scar on her forehead. His second offense 

involved throwing his daughter into a wall with a protruding nail, which caused 

a laceration to her side and a permanent scar. A.H. was a minor and Harness 

was aware that she had previously been subjected to physical abuse. Based on 

the foregoing, we conclude that the nature of Harness’s offenses does not render 

his sentence inappropriate.

[12] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Harness had no criminal 

history and stated at the sentencing hearing: 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01-1512-CR-2231 | March 16, 2017 Page 6 of 8

. . . I wholeheartedly apologize to [A.H. for the battery 

incidents.] I have apologized to [A.H.] multiple times, and she 

knows that. I was wrong. My use of force was inexcusable, and 

I am truly sorry. And I do truly accept the full responsibility for 

the entire incident. I did not do a safe hold [on A.H.] that day. 

And I did lose my temper. 

Tr. pp. 70-71. Harness pleaded guilty, and the State dismissed seventeen of 

nineteen charges. The trial court identified as mitigating factors the sexual, 

mental, and physical abuse Harness suffered as a child, his health problems, 

that he had no criminal history, and that incarceration would cause a hardship 

on his wife and J.H. However, the court found as aggravating factors that the 

circumstances under which the offenses occurred could recur due to the abuse 

that Harness suffered as a child, and that A.H. was in Harness’s trust, care, 

custody, and control. The court ultimately determined that the aggravating 

factors outweighed the mitigating factors.

[13] On two occasions, Harness pushed and threw his daughter into a wall, one time 

with such force that she lost consciousness. After both batteries, A.H. sustained 

injuries that resulted in permanent scars. One scar was caused by A.H.’s body 

hitting a nail that was protruding from the wall. Given the extreme 

consequences of Harness’s batteries on A.H. (i.e., the permanent scars), and 

after due consideration and under the circumstances, we cannot say that 

Harness’s six-year sentence, with four years executed and two years suspended 

to probation, is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his

character.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01-1512-CR-2231 | March 16, 2017 Page 7 of 8

II. Polygraph Examination as Condition of Probation

[14] Harness next argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it required as 

a condition of probation that he submit to polygraph examinations. “A trial 

court has broad discretion to impose conditions of probation which will 

produce a law abiding citizen and protect the public.” Patton v. State, 580 

N.E.2d 693, 698 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991), trans. denied. In Patton, this court 

considered whether it was appropriate for a trial court to impose a condition of 

probation that required the probationer to submit to polygraph examinations 

and to stipulate to the admissibility of the results. We held that a probationer 

could not be forced to stipulate to the admissibility of such evidence, but that it 

was not improper to require the probationer to submit to polygraph 

examinations upon request “when the condition bears a reasonable relationship 

to the rehabilitative aspects of probation.” Id. at 698-99; see also Ind. Code § 35-

38-2-2.3(a)(15) (2012) (“As a condition of probation, the court may require a 

person to . . . [s]atisfy other conditions reasonably related to the person’s 

rehabilitation.”). Such a condition is appropriate when imposed “as a 

deterrence from violating other terms of probation by instilling the fear of 

detection or where the examination provides probation officials with an 

indication of the probationer’s progress in rehabilitation.” Patton, 580 N.E.2d 

at 698.

[15] During Harness’s sentencing, the trial court expressed great concern about the 

abuse that Harness suffered as a child. The trial court imposed the polygraph 

examination condition “because of the evidence [that was presented regarding]
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A01-1512-CR-2231 | March 16, 2017 Page 8 of 8

. . . the horrific abuse and background [Harness] has.” Tr. p. 91. The court 

further stated, “I seriously considered doing the sexual offender probation 

terms, because of . . . the statistics of reoccurrence [sic] and repetition of the 

cycle . . . I changed my mind and only made the polygraph part of it.” Id. at 91-

92. The trial court imposed the polygraph condition to serve a rehabilitative 

function and to provide probation officials with an indication of Harness’s 

progress in rehabilitation. The polygraph probation condition was not 

improper.

Conclusion

[16] For the reasons stated above, we affirm Harness’s sentence for two counts of 

battery as Class C felonies, and the polygraph examination condition of his 

probation.

[17] Affirmed.

Bradford, J., and Brown, J., concur.