Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1283 | October 31, 2018 Page 1 of 7

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

Jeffery Haupt

South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Angela N. Sanchez

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Marcel Cornilus Lane,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

October 31, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-1283

Appeal from the St. Joseph Circuit 

Court

The Honorable John E. Broden, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

71C01-1704-FC-26

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1283 | October 31, 2018 Page 2 of 7

Statement of the Case

[1] Marcel Cornilus Lane (“Lane”) appeals the sentences imposed for his two 

convictions of Level 6 felony nonsupport of a dependent child,1 arguing that his 

aggregate five-year sentence, which is to be served in a work release program

and on probation, is inappropriate. Concluding that Lane has failed to show 

that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm his sentence.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether Lane’s sentence is inappropriate pursuant to Indiana 

Appellate Rule 7(B).

Facts

[3] In February 2000, Lane was ordered to pay $42.00 per week in child support for 

his daughter, T.L. (“T.L.”), who was born in September 1997. In November 

2009, Lane was ordered to pay $43.00 per week in child support for his son, 

A.L. (“A.L.”), who was born in October 1999.2 Lane failed to make payments 

for his children for multiple years, and, on different occasions, he was held in 

contempt for failing to make payments for both children. 

 

1

IND. CODE § 35-46-1-5.

2 Lane had these two children with two different mothers.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1283 | October 31, 2018 Page 3 of 7

[4] In 2017, the State ultimately charged Lane with: Count I, Level 6 felony 

nonsupport of a dependent child for his failure to pay child support for T.L. 

between July 1, 2014 and September 13, 2015; and Count II, Level 6 felony 

nonsupport of a dependent child for his failure to pay child support for A.L. 

between July 1, 2014 and February 28, 2017.3 The trial court held a jury trial 

on April 3, 2018. At the time of trial, Lane had arrearages of almost $29,000.00

for T.L. and more than $20,000.00 for A.L. The jury found Lane guilty as 

charged. 

[5] Prior to sentencing, the probation department compiled a presentence 

investigation report (“PSI”), which showed that Lane had a criminal history 

consisting of convictions for Class D felony sexual misconduct with a minor in 

2001 and Class C misdemeanor resisting arrest in 2013. He also had been 

arrested for drug-related offenses that were ultimately dismissed. According to 

the PSI, Lane reported that he had eight children between the ages of twenty 

years old and three years old. Of these eight children, Lane had been ordered 

to pay child support for the three older children but had failed to be current on 

payments for any of those children.4 The PSI also revealed that Lane had last 

been employed in 2004 and that his parents had financially supported him since 

 

3 The State initially charged Lane with these two offenses in addition to a Class C felony nonsupport of a 

dependent child for T.L. and a Class D felony nonsupport of a dependent child for A.L., but the State later 

dismissed the Class C felony and Class D felony charges. Both T.L. and A.L. were both over eighteen years 

old when the State filed the charges in this case.

4 The two children in this case were two of the three children for which Lane had been ordered to pay child 

support. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1283 | October 31, 2018 Page 4 of 7

2004. Lane told the probation department that he frequently played basketball 

with friends that that he spent the majority of his day playing basketball with 

his children.

[6] At the time of Lane’s sentencing hearing, he had obtained employment. When 

sentencing Lane, the trial court commented on Lane’s PSI statement that he 

spent most of his day playing basketball with his kids and pointed out that Lane 

had not paid child support for almost fifteen years. The trial court noted that 

Lane was “an able-bodied person” who did not have anything preventing him 

from getting a job, other than “a lack of effort.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 17). 

[7] For each conviction, the trial court imposed a two and one-half (21⁄2) years 

sentence, with one (1) year executed on community corrections in a work 

release program and one and one-half (11⁄2) years suspended to probation. The 

trial court ordered that the sentences be served consecutively, resulting in an 

aggregate five (5) year sentence, with two (2) years executed on community 

corrections in a work release program and three (3) years suspended to 

probation. The trial court also ordered Lane to pay restitution for the more 

than $50,000.00 he owed in child support arrearages. Lane now appeals.

Decision

[8] Lane argues that his aggregate five-year sentence was inappropriate. Before we 

address his argument, we note that Lane fails to acknowledge that his aggregate 

sentence contained absolutely no executed time in the Indiana Department of 

Correction. Instead, the trial court ordered Lane to serve this aggregate five-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1283 | October 31, 2018 Page 5 of 7

year sentence, with two years executed on community corrections in a work 

release program and three years suspended to probation. 

[9] We may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and the character of the offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). The 

defendant has the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. 

Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). The principal role of a 

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). 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. at 1224. Additionally, “[u]nder Indiana law, 

several tools are available to the trial court to use in fashioning an appropriate 

sentence for a convicted offender.” Sharp v. State, 970 N.E.2d 647, 650 (Ind. 

2012). These “penal tools”—which include suspension of all or a portion of the 

sentence, probation, executed time in a Department of Correction facility, and 

placement in a community corrections program—“form an integral part of the 

actual aggregate penalty faced by a defendant and are thus properly considered 

as part of the sentence subject to appellate review and revision.” Id. (citing 

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

[10] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge that 

the advisory sentence “is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1283 | October 31, 2018 Page 6 of 7

appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. 

Here, a jury found Lane guilty on two counts of Level 6 felony nonsupport of a 

dependent child. A Level 6 felony has a sentencing range of six (6) months to 

two and one-half (21⁄2) years with an advisory sentence of one (1) year. I.C. § 

35-50-2-7(b). For each conviction, the trial court imposed a two and one-half 

(21⁄2) years sentence, with one (1) year executed on community corrections in a 

work release program and one and one-half (11⁄2) years suspended to probation. 

Thus, the trial court utilized some of the available “penal tools” to fashion a 

sentence for Lane. See Sharp, 970 N.E.2d at 650.

[11] The nature of Lane’s offense involved his failure to pay court-ordered child 

support for two of his children for multiple years, even after he had been held in 

contempt for non-payment. For these two children, Lane owed more than 

$50,000.00. The mothers of his children had to resort to court intervention to 

try to get Lane to pay support.

[12] Turning to Lane’s character, we note that Lane has eight children, three of 

whom he was behind in court-ordered child support. Lane had a GED but

relied on his parents to financially support him since 2004 when he had last 

been employed. As the trial court noted, Lane was “an able-bodied person” 

who did not have anything preventing him from getting a job, other than “a 

lack of effort.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 17). We acknowledge that Lane did, however, 

obtain employment after his jury trial. The trial court used some of the penal 

tools available at sentencing and gave Lane the opportunity to enter a work 

release program where he could work and make payments towards the owed 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1283 | October 31, 2018 Page 7 of 7

child support. Also, the trial court placed Lane on probation. Additionally, in 

considering Lane’s character, we note that he has a prior criminal history that 

includes convictions for sexual misconduct with a minor and resisting arrest.

[13] Lane has not persuaded us that his aggregate five-year sentence, with two years 

executed on community corrections in a work release program and three years 

suspended to probation, for his two convictions of Level 6 felony nonsupport of 

a dependent child is inappropriate. Therefore, we affirm the sentence imposed 

by the trial court.

[14] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Crone, J., concur.