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:

JOHN ANDREW GOODRIDGE GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Evansville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

JOSEPH Y. HO

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

BRIAN RILEY, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 65A01-1111-CR-552

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE POSEY SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable S. Brent Almon, Judge

Cause No. 65D01-1105-FB-245

May 17, 2012

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BARNES, Judge
2

 Case Summary

Brian Riley appeals his five-year sentence for Class C felony battery resulting in 

serious bodily injury.1 We affirm.

Issue

Riley raises one issue, which we restate as whether his sentence is inappropriate.

Facts

On May 24, 2011, Riley hit his wife, A.C., on the face, crushing the left side of her 

jaw, breaking the right side in half, and shattering a wisdom tooth. A.C. underwent 

surgery and had to have steel plates and screws inserted into her mouth. A.C. continues 

to suffer from nerve damage, pain, numbness, and tooth pain. 

On May 25, 2011, the State charged Riley with Class B felony aggravated battery 

and Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury. On September 16, 2011, 

Riley pled guilty to Class C felony battery. Pursuant to the agreement, Riley’s executed 

sentence was capped at six years and the State agreed to dismiss the Class B felony 

charge.

On November 2, 2011, a sentencing hearing was held at which A.C. testified. 

According to the written sentencing order, the trial court sentenced Riley to five years, 

with four years executed and one year suspended to probation. Riley now appeals.

 

1

 It is not clear whether Riley’s conviction was for Class C felony battery based on Indiana Code Section 

35-42-2-1(a)(3) or 35-42-2-1(a)(6).
3

Analysis

Riley argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense 

and his character. 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 

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 
4

sentencing the defendant, including whether a portion of the sentence was suspended. 

Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010).

In considering the nature of the offense, Riley apparently became upset with his 

wife after receiving a text message about her, waited for her to return home from work,

and then punched her in the face three times. A.C.’s three children witnessed at least part 

of the attack. Both sides of A.C.’s jaw were broken and required surgery. Steel plates 

and screws were inserted into A.C.’s mouth, and she continues to suffer from pain and 

numbness, which is likely permanent. During the attack, Riley broke the home phone 

and A.C.’s cell phone. This was an egregious offense.

As for Riley’s character, we acknowledge his guilty plea. However, in exchange 

for his plea, Riley’s executed sentence was capped at six years and a Class B felony 

charge was dismissed. Moreover, in January 2010, Riley pled guilty to Class A 

misdemeanor battery for an offense against A.C. and, in April 2010, he again pled guilty 

to Class A misdemeanor battery for another offense against A.C. Riley’s criminal history 

also includes convictions for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class 

B misdemeanor criminal mischief and includes other convictions in Alabama. This 

criminal history shows an inability to conduct himself in a law-abiding manner. In light 

of nature of the offense and his criminal history, Riley has not established that his fiveyear sentence is inappropriate.

Conclusion

Riley has not established that his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.
5

Affirmed.

FRIEDLANDER, J., and MAY, J., concur.