Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1609-CR-2139 | June 7, 2017 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.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Craig V. Braje

David K. Payne

Braje, Nelson & Janes, LLP

Michigan City, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Jodi Kathryn Stein

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kaylin M. Reynolds,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

June 7, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

46A03-1609-CR-2139

Appeal from the LaPorte Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Thomas Alevizos, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

46C01-1511-F3-990

Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1609-CR-2139 | June 7, 2017 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary and Issue

[1] Kaylin Reynolds pleaded guilty to neglect of a dependent resulting in serious 

bodily injury, a Level 3 felony, and was sentenced to twelve years in the 

Indiana Department of Correction. Reynolds appeals her sentence, contending 

it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and her character. 

Concluding her sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On November 7, 2015, twenty-year-old Reynolds and her boyfriend, Coty 

Sobolewski, were taking care of fourteen-month-old J.H. In their care, J.H. 

sustained third-degree burns over her lower torso, legs, and genital area. 

Reynolds and Sobolewski were immediately aware of J.H.’s injuries but did not 

seek medical treatment. Reynolds attempted to apply cream to J.H.’s legs to 

relieve the extreme pain.

[3] Three days later, Reynolds and Sobolewski sought the advice of their neighbor, 

Lola Evans. Evans instructed them to immediately call 911 as J.H.’s breathing 

was labored, her eyes were fixed, and she was drooling. Reynolds turned to 

Sobolewski and said, “no, what if they think we hurt the baby or got the baby 

high.” Transcript, Volume II at 23. After Evans threatened to call 911, 

Reynolds decided to take J.H. to the hospital.

[4] At the hospital, J.H. was sedated, placed on a ventilator, and transported to the

burn unit at Loyola Medical Center in Chicago. J.H. also suffered from a blood 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1609-CR-2139 | June 7, 2017 Page 3 of 5

infection and remained in the hospital for two months. J.H. suffered extreme 

pain and her father has to apply medication to her legs twice daily to mitigate 

any permanent scarring.

[5] The State charged Reynolds with neglect of a dependent resulting in serious 

bodily injury, a Level 3 felony. On March 4, 2016, Reynolds pleaded guilty as 

charged. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court noted the following 

aggravating circumstances: 1) the victim was less than two years of age, 2) 

Reynolds had a prior criminal history, and 3) Reynolds showed a lack of 

remorse by attempting to place blame on Sobolewski. The only mitigating 

circumstance found by the trial court was Reynolds’ plea of guilty. The trial 

court sentenced Reynolds to twelve years in Department of Correction. 

Reynolds now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Reynolds contends her twelve-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the 

nature of her offense and her character. Indiana Rule of Appellate Procedure 

7(B) gives appellate courts the authority to revise a defendant’s sentence 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.” The defendant bears the burden of persuading this court that 

his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 

(Ind. 2006). “[S]entencing is principally a discretionary function in which the 

trial court’s judgment should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1609-CR-2139 | June 7, 2017 Page 4 of 5

895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008). It is not for the reviewing court “to achieve 

a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case,” but “[t]he principal role of appellate 

review should be to attempt to leaven the outliers.” Id. at 1225. Whether we 

regard a sentence as inappropriate 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.

[7] The advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an 

appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 

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

pleaded guilty to neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury as a 

Level 3 felony. See Ind. Code § 35-46-1-4(b)(2). The statutory sentencing range 

for a Level 3 felony is three to sixteen years, with an advisory sentence of nine

years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5(b). Based upon its identification of several 

aggravating factors, the trial court imposed a twelve-year sentence.

[8] As to the nature of the offense, Reynolds was placed in a position of trust and 

care of a fourteen-month-old child. In her care, J.H. sustained third-degree 

burns on approximately 23% of her body that went untreated for three days, 

despite Reynolds’ awareness of the severity of the burns. When told that J.H. 

needed immediate medical care, Reynolds first expressed her concern about 

whether she would be found at fault and whether anyone would think she “got 

[J.H.] high.” Tr., Vol. II at 23. In addition, J.H. has permanent scarring and 

may have to have surgery on her legs.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1609-CR-2139 | June 7, 2017 Page 5 of 5

[9] As to Reynolds’ character, the trial court noted this is Reynolds’ second offense 

against a child in her young life. In 2010, Reynolds was adjudicated a 

delinquent for child molesting. Reynolds also has a conviction for conversion. 

Aside from her limited, but significant criminal history, Reynolds’ reaction to 

these events speak volumes. As noted above, Reynolds’ first reaction to being 

informed J.H. needed medical care was concern for herself and whether she 

would be deemed at fault or potentially be in trouble for drug use. Nothing 

about Reynolds’ character persuades us her sentence requires revision.

Conclusion

[10] Reynolds’ sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of her offense and 

her character, and we therefore affirm her sentence.

[11] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Bailey, J., concur.