Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1224 | September 21, 2018 Page 1 of 5

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

Evan K. Hammond

Marion, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

J.T. Whitehead

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Isaiah Morrell,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

September 21, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-1224

Appeal from the Grant Superior 

Court

The Honorable Dana J. 

Kenworthy, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

27D02-1309-FB-65

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1224 | September 21, 2018 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary

[1] Isaiah Morrell (“Morrell”) challenges his aggregate sentence of ten years, with 

four years suspended to probation, imposed upon his convictions for two counts 

of Sexual Misconduct with a Minor, as Class B felonies.1 He presents the sole 

issue of whether his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] During 2012, Morrell served as a volunteer youth group leader at Living Water 

Apostolic Church in Grant County, Indiana. On two occasions, Morrell had 

sexual intercourse with one of the youth group members, fourteen-year-old 

S.P.2

[3] On September 9, 2013, the State charged Morrell with two counts of Sexual 

Misconduct with a Minor. He was tried by a jury on March 13 and 14, 2018 

and he was convicted as charged. On April 9, 2018, the trial court imposed 

upon Morrell concurrent sentences of ten years imprisonment, with four years 

suspended to probation. Morrell now appeals.

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9.

2

S.P. testified that there may have been a third occasion, but she could clearly remember only two instances.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1224 | September 21, 2018 Page 3 of 5

Discussion and Decision

[4] At the time of Morrell’s offenses, Indiana Code Section 30-50-2-5 provided that 

a person who committed a Class B felony was subject to a sentencing range of 

six to twenty years, with an advisory sentence of ten years. The trial court 

imposed upon Morrell the advisory sentence, with four years suspended. In so 

doing, the trial court found as an aggravating circumstance that Morrell had 

been in a position of trust with S.P. In mitigation, the trial court found that 

Morrell had only a minor criminal history (driving with a suspended license), 

he was likely to respond to short term incarceration or probation, and 

imprisonment would result in hardship to his dependent children.

[5] Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), this “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.” In performing our review, we assess “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). The principal role of such review is 

to attempt to leaven the outliers. Id. at 1225. The “considerable deference” 

given to the trial court’s sentencing judgment “should prevail unless overcome 

by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense 

(such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the 

defendant’s character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1224 | September 21, 2018 Page 4 of 5

of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015) (citing 

Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222).

[6] As for the nature of the offenses, Morrell twice had sexual intercourse with a 

teenager in his youth group, thereby violating a position of trust he had been 

given. As to his character, Morrell had minimal criminal history. During the 

four years he was out on bond, he committed no additional offenses, was 

employed, and provided support for his children.

[7] For his two offenses, Morrell received concurrent advisory sentences. The trial 

court showed additional leniency by suspending four years to probation. 

According to Morrell, he should have received the minimum sentence of six 

years, with no suspension. Morrell asserts “more mitigating factors were 

identified [compared to] the lone aggravating factor,” Appellant’s Brief at 9, 

thus suggesting that equal weight is to be attributed to each factor. However, 

the weight given to the trial court’s reasons for imposing a sentence is not 

subject to appellate review. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007), 

clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218.

[8] Having reviewed the matter, we conclude that the trial court did not impose an 

inappropriate sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B), and the sentence does not 

warrant appellate revision. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the sentence 

imposed by the trial court. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1224 | September 21, 2018 Page 5 of 5

Conclusion

[9] The sentence imposed upon Morrell is not inappropriate.

[10] Affirmed.

Mathias, J., and Bradford, J., concur.