Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2536 | May 9, 2019 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

Cara Schaefer Wieneke

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General

Caroline G. Templeton

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Tiffany Lynn Daugherty,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

May 9, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2536

Appeal from the 

Vigo Superior Court

The Honorable

John T. Roach, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

84D01-1703-F1-715

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2536 | May 9, 2019 Page 2 of 8

[1] Tiffany Lynn Daugherty pled guilty to several offenses surrounding the death of 

her five-year-old disabled daughter, and the trial court sentenced her to twentyone years—fifteen years in the Department of Correction and six years 

suspended to probation. Daugherty now appeals, arguing that her sentence is 

inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Daugherty and her boyfriend, Brian Moseman,

1

lived together in Terre Haute 

along with their four children, including Adilynn, who was born in July 2010. 

Daugherty was the primary caretaker of Adilynn, who had “extreme special 

needs.” Tr. p. 102. Adilynn had microcephaly, mitochondrial disorder, and 

seizures. In addition, she was hearing impaired, vision impaired, and unable to 

talk; and she needed a feeding tube to eat, a tracheostomy to breathe, and a 

wheelchair to get around. 

[3] In April 2011, Adilynn, who weighed 8 pounds, was admitted to Riley Hospital 

for Children for failure to thrive and malnutrition. While Adilynn was 

hospitalized, she gained weight. Doctors warned Daugherty that malnutrition 

could result in increased infections, developmental delays, and Adilynn’s death. 

DCS was contacted, and the parents and DCS entered into an informal 

 

1 Moseman pled guilty to two counts of Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent and was sentenced to 

concurrent terms of two-and-a-half years, all suspended to probation. See 84D01-1703-F1-716. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2536 | May 9, 2019 Page 3 of 8

adjustment, which ended in late 2011. In July 2012, Adilynn was seen at Riley 

Hospital and weighed 21.12 pounds. 

[4] Adilynn, however, received very little medical care after this point. Although 

Daugherty said Adilynn had a pediatrician in Terre Haute, she saw this 

pediatrician only once, in November 2013. Adilynn weighed 16 pounds at this 

appointment. Adilynn’s next doctor appointment was over two years later, in 

December 2015, with a different pediatrician. Adilynn weighed 17.12 pounds 

at this appointment. Although Adilynn was supposed to have regular follow-up 

care at Riley Hospital, including further genetic testing, she was never seen 

there again. This is so even though Daugherty took her other three children to 

the doctor regularly. 

[5] On December 23, 2015, Daugherty called Adilynn’s nutritionist at IU Health to 

discuss Adilynn’s caloric intake. This was the nutritionist’s first contact with 

Daugherty since 2012. Daugherty told the nutritionist that Adilynn, who was 

then five years old, weighed 26 pounds (even though she weighed 17.12 pounds 

earlier that same month). On January 6, 2016, the nutritionist called Daugherty

to follow up on Adilynn, and Daugherty said she had gained 1.5 pounds that

week. Daugherty said she was concerned that Adilynn was gaining too much 

weight, which would interfere with the trach. The nutritionist told Daugherty 

to follow up with Adilynn’s pediatrician to get a different trach size. 

[6] Approximately two weeks later, on January 21, 2016, Daugherty dropped off 

Adilynn at Moseman’s mother’s house. Shortly thereafter, the grandmother
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2536 | May 9, 2019 Page 4 of 8

noticed that something was wrong with Adilynn and called Daugherty. 

Adilynn was taken to the hospital, where she was pronounced dead. Adilynn

weighed 16.94 pounds at the time of her death. DCS had Daugherty take a 

drug screen that day, and she tested positive for marijuana. DCS also went to 

Daugherty and Moseman’s house, where it found 115 unopened bottles of 

Adilynn’s formula. 

[7] An autopsy was conducted the following day. According to the forensic 

pathologist, the cause of Adilynn’s death was “patchy bronchopneumonia” and 

malnutrition. Ex. 5. The pathologist’s report showed the following signs of 

medical neglect: (1) Adilynn failed to gain weight while in the care of her 

parents, despite a consistent pattern of gaining weight while in the care of 

hospital personnel; (2) the parents failed to seek ongoing medical care for 

Adilynn at Riley Hospital for several years even though she had major medical 

issues; and (3) Adilynn had severe malnutrition at the time of her death, despite

the fact that she was provided special feeding materials by social services. 

[8] The State charged Daugherty with eight counts: Count I: Level 1 felony neglect 

of a dependent resulting in death (failed to provide adequate nutrition and/or 

medical care to Adilynn); Count II: Level 3 felony neglect of a dependent 

resulting in serious bodily injury (failed to provide adequate nutrition and/or 

medical care to Adilynn); Count III: Level 5 felony neglect of a dependent 

resulting in bodily injury (failed to provide adequate nutrition and/or medical 

care to Adilynn); Count IV: Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent (failed to 

provide adequate nutrition and/or medical care to Adilynn); Count V: Level 6 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2536 | May 9, 2019 Page 5 of 8

felony neglect of a dependent (placed Adilynn in a situation that endangered 

her life or health by having “THC in her system”); Count VI: Level 6 felony 

welfare fraud (misused SSI benefits for Adilynn); Count VII: Level 6 felony 

theft (exerted unauthorized control over money from Vigo County Welfare 

Department); and Count VIII: Level 5 felony reckless homicide. Appellant’s 

App. Vol. II pp. 127-28. Daugherty was released on bond pending trial; 

however, she later violated the conditions of her pretrial release for failing to 

report and was sent back to jail. 

[9] The State and Daugherty later entered into a plea agreement. According to the 

agreement, Daugherty would plead guilty to Counts II, V, VII, and VIII, the 

State would dismiss the remaining charges, and “[f]or purposes of sentencing, 

Count VIII will merge with Count II” and “Counts II, V and VII shall run 

consecutive to each other.” Id. at 124. The agreement also provided:

The State will recommend that defendant be sentenced to a set 

sentence of twenty-one (21) years. A minimum of ten (10) years 

shall be executed with the parties each permitted to argue to the 

court placement on this portion of the sentence. The parties shall 

argue the sentence imposed on the remaining eleven (11) years, 

with each side permitted to argue from suspended time with or 

without probation to a fully executed sentence.

Id. 

[10] At the sentencing hearing, the trial court identified the following aggravators: 

(1) Adilynn was less than twelve years old; (2) Daugherty violated the 

conditions of her pretrial release; (3) Adilynn was mentally and physically 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2536 | May 9, 2019 Page 6 of 8

infirm; (4) Daugherty had care, custody, and control of Adilynn; and (5) the 

nature and circumstances of the crime, specifically the prolonged period during 

which the acts occurred. The court identified the following mitigators: (1) 

Daugherty had no criminal history at the time of these offenses; (2) she suffered 

from post-traumatic stress disorder (according to Daugherty, she witnessed her 

mother attempt suicide and was a crime victim herself as a child); and (3) she 

accepted responsibility and expressed remorse. Pursuant to the plea agreement, 

the trial court sentenced Daugherty to twenty-one years. The court then 

ordered Daugherty to serve fifteen years in the DOC (the plea agreement 

required a minimum of ten years) and six years on probation. The court 

explained its sentence as follows:

You starved your child to death. . . . You made the statement 

that [you] didn’t realize until [you] gather[ed] picture[s] for the 

funeral about what was going on. You know why that’s not true? 

Because after three (3) years of not taking her to the doctor, in 

your own words, you knew something was wrong in December, 

and what we had in December was the picture I’m not going to 

show you again, you’ve seen it, it’s the picture in the autopsy, 

when that child had gotten down to sixteen (16) pounds. That 

doesn’t gradually happen. It happened because of your actions. 

And to do anything less than the sentence in this case would 

essentially make [Adilynn] a thro[w]-away and I’m not going to 

do that.

Tr. p. 130. The court added that “[u]pon completion of ten (10) years of the 

executed portion of the sentence, [Daugherty] is permitted to petition the court 

for modification of her placement for the balance of her executed sentence.” 

Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 184-85.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2536 | May 9, 2019 Page 7 of 8

[11] Daugherty now appeals her sentence. 

Discussion and Decision

[12] Daugherty contends that having to serve fifteen years of her twenty-one-year 

sentence in the DOC is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and 

her character. She asks us to reduce the fifteen-year executed portion of her 

sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that an 

appellate 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.” Because we generally defer to the judgment of trial 

courts in sentencing matters, Norris v. State, 27 N.E.3d 333, 335-36 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2015), defendants have the burden of persuading us that their sentences

are inappropriate, Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). 

“Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the 

defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad 

of other factors that come to light in a given case.” Id. (citing Cardwell v. State, 

895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008)).

[13] Daugherty acknowledges that the crimes are “serious.” Appellant’s Br. p. 8. 

As the trial court found, Daugherty, Adilynn’s mother and primary caretaker, 

did not provide Adilynn—a child with “extreme special needs”—with medical 

care for three years and “starved [her] to death.” Tr. p. 130. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2536 | May 9, 2019 Page 8 of 8

[14] As for Daugherty’s character, it is true that she had no criminal history until 

this case. Although the trial court found that Daugherty accepted responsibility

and expressed remorse, it also found that Daugherty did not take any steps to 

improve herself and in fact “went the complete opposite way” by violating the 

terms of her pretrial release. See id. at 131-32. Finally, Daugherty points out 

that this crime is unlikely to reoccur, as Adilynn had “serious physical needs 

that warranted an extraordinary level of care” and her “other children do not 

suffer from these same disabilities.” Appellant’s Br. p. 9. Even considering 

these things in Daugherty’s favor, they do not overcome the disturbing nature 

of these offenses. Daugherty has failed to persuade us that the fifteen-year

executed portion of her sentence, which she can ask the court to modify after 

completing ten years (the minimum under the plea agreement), is inappropriate. 

[15] Affirmed. 

Kirsch, J., and Altice, J., concur.