Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1610-CR-2384 | August 9, 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

Jane Ann Noblitt

Columbus, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Tyler G. Banks

Richard Carey Webster

Deputy Attorneys General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Christopher O. May,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

August 9, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

03A01-1610-CR-2384

Appeal from the Bartholomew 

Superior Court

The Honorable James D. Worton, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

03D01-1603-F5-1299

May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1610-CR-2384 | August 9, 2017 Page 2 of 8

[1] Christopher O. May appeals his seven-year aggregate sentence for his 

convictions of Level 5 felony battery against a public safety official,1 Class A 

misdemeanor resisting law enforcement,2 and Class B misdemeanor criminal 

recklessness.3

 May argues his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of 

his offenses and his character. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On February 27, 2016, Officer James Frederick of the Columbus Police 

Department received information that multiple callers had reported a truck 

driving dangerously on the roadway. Officer Frederick proceeded to the area to 

investigate, and he eventually arrived at a crash scene. A truck, driven by May,

had crashed into another car, and May was outside the crashed truck, flailing 

his arms around, and “appeared to be holding a stun gun.” (App. Vol. II at 13.) 

[3] Officer Frederick initially held May at gunpoint and ordered him to the ground. 

May did not comply. Instead, he looked at Officer Frederick and asked if 

Officer Frederick’s gun was real. Officer Frederick switched from his firearm to 

his Taser. The first attempt to subdue May with the Taser was unsuccessful 

because the probes failed to penetrate May’s body. May approached Officer 

Frederick, “activated his stun gun, and [Officer Frederick] could hear the 

 

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(b)(1) & (f)(5)(A) (2014). 

2 Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1) (2014).

3 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-2(a) (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1610-CR-2384 | August 9, 2017 Page 3 of 8

electric current.” (Id.) Officer Frederick managed to reload his Taser and 

deploy it a second time at May. This time, May fell to the ground, and another 

officer who had arrived at the scene helped handcuff May.

[4] The police took May to the hospital to have his blood drawn pursuant to a 

search warrant. Officer Ben Quesenbery read the search warrant to May. 

Officer Quesenbery was in May’s hospital room with two other officers and 

medical staff. Officer Quesenbery was in the process of searching May for 

weapons when May kicked Officer Quesenbery in the neck. Officer 

Quesenbery testified the kick was “extremely painful,” (Tr. at 35), and although 

he did not have any bruising, he had “a very sore and stiff neck the next day.” 

(Id. at 36.) 

[5] May was charged with Level 5 felony battery against a public safety official, 

Level 6 felony intimidation,4 Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while 

intoxicated endangering a person,5 Class A misdemeanor operating a motor

vehicle without ever receiving a driver’s license,6 Class A misdemeanor resisting 

law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor criminal recklessness. May was 

offered, and accepted, a plea agreement. The plea agreement provided the 

 

4 Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1 (2014).

5 Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2 (2001).

6 Ind. Code § 9-24-18-1 (2015). Operating a motor vehicle without ever receiving a driver’s license is defined 

as a Class C misdemeanor. Ind. Code § 9-24-18-1. However, the crime becomes a Class A misdemeanor 

when a defendant already has a prior unrelated conviction of operating without ever receiving a license, and 

May had a prior conviction. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1610-CR-2384 | August 9, 2017 Page 4 of 8

Court would recommend May’s placement in the Purposeful Incarceration 

Program and indicated May understood he could be sentenced within the 

statutory range for each offense. 

[6] May pled guilty to Level 5 felony battery, Class A misdemeanor resisting law 

enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor criminal recklessness in exchange for 

dismissal of the other three charges. The court sentenced May to six years for 

battery, one year for resisting law enforcement, and 180 days for criminal 

recklessness. The resisting law enforcement and criminal recklessness sentences 

were ordered served concurrent to one another and consecutive to the battery 

sentence, for an aggregate sentence of seven years. 

Discussion and Decision

[7] May argues his seven-year sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate 

Rule 7(B). Under this rule, we may revise a sentence if, after due consideration 

of the trial court’s decision, we find the sentence inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Williams v. State, 891 

N.E.2d 621, 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Our review is deferential to the trial 

court’s decision, and our goal is to determine whether the defendant’s sentence 

is inappropriate, not whether some other sentence would be more appropriate. 

Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012), reh’g denied. The appellant 

bears the burden of demonstrating his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. 

State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). In reviewing May’s sentence, we 

“should focus on the forest – the aggregate sentence – rather than the trees” –
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1610-CR-2384 | August 9, 2017 Page 5 of 8

the individual sentences. See Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 

2008). Whether a sentence is inappropriate depends on, “our 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.” Id. at 1224. 

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

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

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

advisory sentence for a Level 5 felony is three years, with a sentencing range 

from one year to six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b) (2014). “A person who 

commits a Class A misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not 

more than one year.” Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2 (1977). A conviction of a Class B 

misdemeanor carries a sentence of no more than 180 days. Ind. Code § 35-50-

3-3 (1977). We determine the appropriateness of a deviation from the advisory 

sentence by reviewing whether there is anything about May’s offenses that 

makes them different from the “typical” offenses accounted for by the 

legislature when it set the advisory sentence. See Rich v. State, 890 N.E.2d 44, 

54 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. 

[9] May received the maximum available sentence for each of his three convictions, 

for an aggregate sentence of seven years. The trial court found the nature of his 

battery conviction and “the harm, injury, loss or damage . . . to the [Officer] in 

this case was significant and greater than the elements necessary to approve

[sic] the commission of the offense.” (Tr. at 45.) The trial court so found 

because, while Officer Quesenbery did not suffer a permanent injury, offenses 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1610-CR-2384 | August 9, 2017 Page 6 of 8

committed against police officers, such as the kick to the neck, “have a lot more 

long-lasting [effect] to them psychologically [and] emotionally.” (Id.)

[10] May contends the nature of the battery offense for his kick to Officer 

Quesenbery’s neck did not justify an enhanced sentence because it did not cause 

the officer permanent damage. In support of this argument, May points us to 

Indiana Code section 35-38-1-7.1(b)(1) (2015), which states the trial court, when 

imposing a sentence, may consider that “the crime neither caused nor 

threatened serious harm to persons or property, or the person did not 

contemplate that it would do so.” However, the trial court did consider the 

injury and whether it threatened serious harm to the officer. The trial court, in 

its discretion, chose not to find a mitigator in the fact that Officer Quesenbery 

did not suffer permanent injury, nor was the trial court required to so find. See 

Shane v. State, 769 N.E.2d 1195, 1199 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (“a trial court is not 

required to find mitigating factors or give them the same weight as the 

defendant”). While May did not permanently injure Officer Quesenbery, May

caused injury when he battered Officer Quesenbery at the hospital, May failed 

to follow Officer Frederick’s commands at the scene of the accident, and May

committed criminal recklessness by driving recklessly and causing a crash while 

on methamphetamine and heroin. In light of May’s offenses, we cannot say a 

seven-year sentence is inappropriate. 

[11] Regarding May’s character, the pre-sentence investigation report shows May 

has a long history of substance abuse. He has been consuming alcohol, using 

inhalants, and smoking marijuana since the age of eight. At age twelve, May 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1610-CR-2384 | August 9, 2017 Page 7 of 8

began using LSD, heroin, and methamphetamine. He stated he uses controlled 

substances daily. May admitted he was on methamphetamine and heroin at the 

time of the crash.

[12] “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. The trial court found May’s long criminal history to 

be significant, noting his criminal history includes “violence,” “felonies,” and 

“crimes of dishonesty.” (Tr. at 44.) More specifically, his criminal history is 

comprised of seven felony convictions and eight misdemeanor convictions for a 

variety of offenses, such as theft, possession of controlled substances, criminal 

mischief, carrying a handgun without a license, and conversion. May also had 

three cases pending at the time of this sentencing, his probation had been 

revoked in the past, and while in jail for these crimes, May engaged in 

“indecent exposure, battery upon another person, [and] disorderly conduct.” 

(Id. at 47.) Finally, May has been involved with a gang called the “Bloods” for 

six years. (App. Vol. III at 11.) 

[13] On appeal, May argues that while he does possess a lengthy criminal history, he 

is remorseful for his past offenses, accepts responsibility for those offenses, and 

recognizes his need for help in order to turn his life around. However, May’s

gang involvement, abuse of illegal substances, and failure to be rehabilitated by 

numerous past legal consequences demonstrate his disregard for the law and the 

appropriateness of more severe punishment. Thus, May has not demonstrated

his sentence is inappropriate based on his character and offenses. See Gracia v. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1610-CR-2384 | August 9, 2017 Page 8 of 8

State, 976 N.E.2d 85, 91 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (eight-year sentence not 

inappropriate when defendant punched and kicked his arresting officers and 

had an extensive criminal history), trans. denied. 

Conclusion

[14] May has failed to demonstrate his sentence is inappropriate considering the 

nature of his offenses and his character. Accordingly, we affirm.

[15] Affirmed.

Brown, J., and Pyle, J., concur.