Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 1 of 20

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

R. Patrick Magrath

Laura Raiman

Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP

Madison, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Tyler G. Banks

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

William A. Connor,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

August 2, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

03A05-1511-CR-1893

Appeal from the Bartholomew 

Superior Court

The Honorable James D. Worton, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

03D01-1502-FB-1033

03D01-1504-F3-1937

Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 2 of 20

Case Summary and Issue

[1] William Connor entered a plea of guilty to criminal deviate conduct as a Class 

B felony, in exchange for which the State dismissed a charge in a separate case. 

The trial court sentenced Connor to fourteen years in the Indiana Department 

of Correction (“DOC”) with four years suspended to probation. Connor 

appeals his sentence, raising the sole issue of whether it is inappropriate in light 

of the nature of his offense and his character. Concluding his sentence is not 

inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History1

[2] Connor was born in 1997 in Russia. At age three, severely malnourished and 

unable to speak, he was placed in an orphanage. He was adopted by the 

Connors at age four and raised with the Connors’ two biological daughters, 

M.C. and J.C. Connor has attempted suicide on several occasions and has 

been involved with mental health services for several years. He has been 

diagnosed with reactive attachment and bipolar disorders.

[3] On February 23, 2015, sixteen-year-old J.C. reported to law enforcement that 

Connor, then seventeen years old, had engaged in sexual conduct with her 

against her will multiple times over the past two years. Connor admitted to the 

 

1 No transcript of the change of plea hearing was provided to this court, and therefore, the facts underlying 

the offense come primarily from the Affidavit for Probable Cause. The parties’ recitation of the facts in their 

briefs also come from the affidavit. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 3 of 20

sexual contact when interviewed by police. On February 27, 2015, the State 

charged Connor with criminal deviate conduct, a Class B felony (“Cause 

1033”).

2

 A jury trial was scheduled for July 28, 2015.

[4] On April 15, 2015, the State charged Connor with rape as a Level 3 felony for 

acts committed against a second victim (“Cause 1937”). Connor obtained a 

continuance of his July jury trial date in Cause 1033 and ultimately reached an 

agreement with the State to plead guilty to criminal deviate conduct in Cause 

1033 in exchange for the State dismissing Cause 1937. The trial court held a 

change of plea hearing in Cause 1033 on September 21, 2015, at which time 

Connor filed a Waiver of Rights, Withdrawal of Plea of Not Guilty and Plea of 

Guilty. The trial court accepted the plea of guilty, entered judgment of 

conviction, ordered a pre-sentence investigation report to be prepared, and 

scheduled a sentencing hearing. 

[5] Connor had one prior contact with the juvenile court system, in late 2014, when 

he was alleged to have committed two acts of conversion, Class A 

misdemeanors if committed by an adult, and leaving home without permission. 

He was remanded to a shelter before being released approximately six weeks 

later to his parents. He was given a 120-day suspended detention and placed on 

 

2

It appears the State may have actually charged two counts of criminal deviate conduct in Cause 1033. See, 

e.g., Appellant’s Appendix at 1 (Chronological Case Summary); id. at 32 (letter from the State offering to 

“dismiss the remaining counts and [Cause 1937]” in exchange for Connor’s plea of guilty to Count I in Cause 

1033); id. at 55 (Abstract of Judgment). However, there is but one charging information in the record 

alleging one count of criminal deviate conduct in Cause 1033. See id. at 6. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 4 of 20

probation with the requirement that he complete a psychological evaluation and 

follow up as recommended. He was on probation when the current charge was 

filed. The pre-sentence investigation report noted that Connor’s overall risk 

assessment score indicated he was a low to moderate risk in most areas but a 

high risk with regard to his criminal attitudes and behavior patterns and was 

therefore at an overall high risk category to reoffend. 

[6] At the sentencing hearing on October 20, 2015, Connor spoke on his own 

behalf, and both his father and J.C. gave statements. The trial court sentenced 

Connor to fourteen years in the DOC with four years suspended to probation:

This is a very difficult case . . . [a]nd it is difficult on everybody 

involved, but the Court does agree with the State’s contention 

that there is a balancing act to try and accomplish here today in 

formatting an appropriate sentence. And that is the mental 

health treatment and, and rehabilitating treatment for the 

defendant, which is important. And the safety of the victim in 

this case, which is very important and the safety of the rest of the 

community. . . . The Court is not insensitive to the, to the fact 

that you have had some, had some rough times in your life, 

especially at the beginning of your life . . . but I would like to say 

that in this Court’s mind does not in any way justify the actions 

that you did. . . . So we start with the advisory term of ten years 

and then the Court weighs aggravators and mitigators. . . . In 

this case the Court finds the following aggravators. The 

defendant does have a history of criminal delinquent behavior. 

The, yes there is not an extensive criminal history there, but the 

Court does note that there were more than, though you’ve plead 

to one offense there were [sic] more than one offense that 

occurred. This is something that occurred over a period of time. 

The Court also finds as an aggravator that the harm, injury or 

loss or damage suffered by the victim of the offense was 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 5 of 20

significant and greater than the elements necessary to approve 

[sic] the commission of the offense. The Court will take the 

defendant’s mental health and find that as a slight mitigator . . . 

that those issues are present. . . . The Court . . . notes that the 

Indiana Risk Assessment Tool, shows that the defendant, as it 

stands today has a high risk to re-offend. So the Court does, 

doesn’t find that as an aggravator, but the Court does note that 

for the record. The Court considers the balance of aggravating 

and mitigating factors to be that the aggravators outweigh the 

mitigators.

Transcript at 22-25. Connor now appeals his sentence.

Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review

[7] Although a trial court may have acted within its lawful discretion in imposing a 

sentence, Article 7, sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorize 

independent appellate review and revision of sentences. Trainor v. State, 950 

N.E.2d 352, 355 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. Indiana Appellate Rule 

7(B) implements that authority and provides, “The 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.” 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). Whether we regard a sentence as 

inappropriate “turns on our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the 

severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 6 of 20

come to light in a given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind.

2008). Finally, we note the principal role of appellate review is to “leaven the 

outliers,” not achieve the perceived “correct” result in each case. Id. at 1225. 

II. Inappropriate Sentence

A. Waiver

[8] We address first the State’s contention that Connor has waived review of his 

sentence because he did not make a specific argument that the nature of his 

offense makes his sentence inappropriate, citing Anderson v. State, 989 N.E.2d 

823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. See Brief of Appellee at 9-10. Anderson

does state that “[a]n appellant bears the burden of showing both prongs of the 

inquiry favor revision of her sentence[,]” citing Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 

1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Our reading of Childress finds no such statement, 

however, just a simple declaration that “a defendant must persuade the 

appellate court that his or her sentence has met th[e] inappropriateness standard 

of review.” 848 N.E.2d at 1080; see, e.g., Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852, 856 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citing Childress for the proposition that “[t]he appellant 

bears the burden of demonstrating his sentence is inappropriate”).

[9] In fact, our courts have frequently treated the two prongs as separate inquiries 

to ultimately be balanced in determining whether a sentence is inappropriate. 

See, e.g., Eckelbarger v. State, 51 N.E.3d 169, 170-71 (Ind. 2016) (revising 

defendant’s sentence from thirty-two years to sixteen years upon finding the 

nature of his offenses—drug offenses facilitated by a State informant—did not 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 7 of 20

warrant consecutive sentences, without also discussing whether his character 

warranted revision); Isom v. State, 31 N.E.3d 469, 494 (Ind. 2015) (noting “[t]he 

character of the offender, rather than the nature of the offense, presents 

[defendant’s] strongest support for revision[,]” but ultimately declining to revise 

the sentence because the nature of the offenses “far outweigh his otherwise 

favorable character”), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1161 (2016); Rice v. State, 6 N.E.3d 

940, 947 (Ind. 2014) (stating, in declining to revise defendant’s sentence, “[w]e 

are thus not convinced that either the nature of the offense or the character of the 

offender warrants a revision”) (emphasis added); Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1226 

(revising defendant’s sentence without considering the nature of the defendant’s 

character because “the record contains a number of inconclusive factors on 

which the trial court made no findings”); Schaaf v. State, No. 85A04-1506-CR796, 2016 WL 2899460, at *3 (Ind. Ct. App. May 18, 2016) (revising a sentence 

upon finding that although the defendant’s criminal history was significant and 

would make a below-advisory sentence too lenient, the nature of his “relatively 

minor” offenses rendered his above-advisory sentences too harsh); Norris v. 

State, 27 N.E.3d 333, 336 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (acknowledging defendant’s 

criminal history but revising sentence as inappropriate due to “the relatively 

innocuous nature of this offense”); Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 633-35 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (revising defendant’s sentence on the basis of the nature of 

his offense even though defendant did not make an argument regarding his 

sentence in light of his character); Douglas v. State, 878 N.E.2d 873, 881 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2007) (revising defendant’s sentence “[a]fter due consideration of [his] 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 8 of 20

minimal criminal history, probation violations, and guilty plea,” which are all 

factors weighing on defendant’s character).3 

[10] In other words, although the rule does state that we may revise a sentence we 

find to be inappropriate “in light of the nature of the offense and the character of 

the offender,” App. R. 7(B) (emphasis added), we view that as a statement that 

we as the reviewing court must consider both of those prongs in our assessment,4

and not as a requirement that the defendant must necessarily prove each of those 

prongs render his sentence inappropriate. In practice, as illustrated by the cases 

cited above, we often exercise our review and revise power where only one of 

the prongs weighs heavily in favor of either affirming or revising the sentence. 

See Payton v. State, 818 N.E.2d 493, 498 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (“[I]t is clear that 

[the defendant’s] character falls within the category of the worst offenders. 

However, we are also obliged to consider the nature of the offenses. In our 

opinion, the offenses committed, while egregious, are by far not the worst we 

have reviewed. Therefore, in this category of offenses, we do not find [the 

defendant’s] actions to be the worst we have reviewed and, thus, we deem his 

aggregate . . . sentence to be inappropriate. Therefore, we revise [the 

 

3 Conversely, we have found an inappropriate sentence argument to be waived when the defendant invokes 

the rule but sets forth no reasons supporting that claim, see, e.g., Boyle v. State, 868 N.E.2d 435, 437 (Ind. 

2007), or when the defendant claims to be making a 7(B) argument but instead asserts the trial court erred in 

its identification or weighing of aggravators and mitigators, see, e.g., Sandleben v. State, 29 N.E.3d 126, 135-36 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.

4 This is not to say that we should consider only one prong or the other, see slip op. at 19, but that we must 

consider both prongs together.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 9 of 20

defendant’s] sentence to reflect the presumptive for each offense . . . .”), trans. 

denied. In short, 7(B) review is a holistic approach, “focus[ing] on the forest . . . 

rather than the trees . . . .” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225. This is in line with 

the acknowledgement in Childress that the 2003 amendment to Rule 7 

“represented a shift from a prohibition on revising sentences unless certain 

narrow conditions were met to an authorization to revise sentences when 

certain broad conditions are satisfied.” 848 N.E.2d at 1079 (quotation 

omitted). 

[11] Even the most heinous offense—and no one could dispute with a straight face 

that every child molesting offense is heinous—comes with an advisory sentence

that can be reduced or enhanced within a given range. Although the trial 

court’s reasons for imposing a given sentence within that range can be reviewed 

for abuse of discretion, the trial court’s weighing of those reasons cannot. 

Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007). By arguing only that the 

nature of his character warrants a lesser sentence, Connor has essentially 

conceded that if we were reviewing the circumstances of his crime alone, his

sentence would be warranted; however, he urges us to give more weight to the 

nature of his character than to the circumstances of his crime. We believe this 

is an appropriate acknowledgement of the seriousness of his offense and an 

acceptable request for exercise of our review and revise power. We therefore do 

not believe Connor has waived our review of his sentence under Rule 7(B). His 

burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate has not been 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 10 of 20

lessened, and, in fact, may be heightened by the need to prove the nature of his 

character should overcome the admittedly serious nature of his offense.

B. Rule 7(B) Review

[12] We begin by noting that the advisory sentence is the starting point the 

legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed. 

Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. Connor was convicted of criminal deviate 

conduct, a Class B felony. A Class B felony carries a possible sentence of six to 

twenty years, with an advisory sentence of ten years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5(a). 

The victim in this case was Connor’s sister and the forced sexual contact 

occurred multiple times over the course of at least two years. The trial court 

found two aggravating circumstances—Connor’s history of criminal or 

delinquent behavior and the harm to the victim was significant and greater than 

required to prove the elements of the offense—and one mitigating 

circumstance—Connor’s mental health condition. The trial court found the 

aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstance and ordered 

an enhanced sentence of fourteen years, with four years suspended to probation 

with community corrections placement. 

[13] As Connor himself acknowledges, the nature of his offense is serious because 

“the sexual victimization of a person, particularly a minor, is a heinous act.” 

Amended Appellant’s Brief at 8. Connor therefore focuses solely on the nature 

of his character in contending his sentence is inappropriate, asserting his 

sentence should be reduced because he is young, had a difficult early childhood, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 11 of 20

and later developed behavioral and mental health issues and substance abuse 

problems. In all respects, this case is tragic. At the time he was sentenced for 

forcibly engaging in sexual activity with his adoptive sister, Connor was 

eighteen years old. He was neglected as an infant and left in an orphanage as a 

toddler. These early childhood traumas adversely affected his life even after he 

was adopted into a family who supported and tried to assist him, and who, 

despite his actions, recognize he needs treatment and continue to offer support. 

See Tr. at 13 (Connor’s adoptive father testifying at the sentencing hearing that 

“we love him very much, he’s our son, . . . and we still care about his future 

very much. We are in a difficult position in this case, but still feel that he has a 

lot of potential in his future”); id. at 16 (J.C. testifying at the sentencing hearing 

that “I don’t think he learned to be comforted in his early years. I think that his 

views on family, authority and trust were formed during this time. 

Unfortunately he does not seem to understand the assistance that his current 

family has tried to offer. He has rejected our comfort and treatment that my 

parents has been [sic] . . . seeking [for him] for a long period of time. He’s 

never really gotten the appropriate kind of help. I hope that he can now receive 

the help that he needs, I want to see him get better more than I want to see him 

punished”). Connor reported during the pre-sentence investigation that he 

struggled to bond with his family and feels detached from them; he has in fact 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 12 of 20

been diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder.5 He has also been diagnosed 

with bipolar disorder and has attempted suicide three or four times.

[14] While we acknowledge the serious challenges Connor has faced, we must also 

acknowledge that he has been provided multiple opportunities to address those 

challenges and has not fully accepted those opportunities. Connor’s parents 

have pursued mental health services for him for several years. He was 

hospitalized after one suicide attempt and prescribed medication that he was 

resistant to taking. He has, however, self-medicated with drugs including 

marijuana, hydrocodone, Adderall, and on one occasion, heroin. He has been 

in counseling for several years with several counselors. The most recent 

attempt at counseling lasted approximately one year, but was terminated 

because Connor did not fully engage in the process and ultimately refused to 

participate. 

[15] In addition, although Connor’s prior criminal history is limited to juvenile 

adjudications for conversion and leaving home without permission, he was only 

seventeen when he was arrested on the current charge. His juvenile 

adjudications also demonstrate, in part, his disregard for the authority of his 

parents and his disrespect of the family unit. We must also note that Connor 

was charged with a sex crime against another family member, although the 

 

5 Reactive attachment disorder “is a rare but serious condition in which an infant or young child doesn’t 

establish healthy attachments with parents or caregivers.” Mayo Clinic Online, 

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/reactive-attachment-disorder/basics/definition/con20032126 (last visited May 27, 2016). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 13 of 20

charge was dismissed as part of the plea agreement in this case. And finally we 

note that Connor pleaded guilty to using force to compel J.C. and reiterated at 

the sentencing hearing that force was involved, but reported during the presentence investigation that the sexual contact with J.C. was consensual. This at 

least reflects a disregard for the victim, and at most, a failure to take full 

responsibility for the wrongfulness of his conduct.

[16] We agree with the trial court, the victim and her family, and Connor himself 

that he is in need of rehabilitative and mental health treatment. We also note 

Connor has not to this point taken advantage of opportunities for such 

treatment and has instead wandered down a dangerous path. Given the serious 

nature of his offense and the fact that he has not yet demonstrated a 

commitment to helping himself overcome the difficult circumstances of his 

birth, we cannot say that Connor has persuaded us his fourteen-year sentence is 

inappropriate.

Conclusion

[17] Connor has not met his burden of persuading us that his fourteen year sentence 

is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character. 

Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.

[18] Affirmed.

Crone, J., concurs.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 14 of 20

Najam, J., concurs in result with separate opinion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 15 of 20

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

William A. Connor

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

Court of Appeals Case No.

03A05-1511-CR-1893

Najam, Judge, concurring in result.

[19] I concur in the result. I agree that Connor’s sentence should be affirmed, but I 

cannot join in the majority’s interpretation of Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). The 

majority states that we can review and revise a sentence on appeal when the 

appellant argues that his sentence is inappropriate under either the nature of the 

offense or his character. See Slip op. at 6-10. That interpretation is contrary to 

how Indiana’s appellate courts have consistently understood and applied Rule 

7(B). And, for this court to address both parts of Rule 7(B) in the absence of an 

appellant’s own cogent argument, this court will have to become an advocate 

for the appellant, which is not our role. See, e.g., Thacker v. Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 

342, 345 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003); see also Ford v. State, 718 N.E.2d 1104, 1107 n.1 

(Ind. 1999) (concluding that the appellant forfeited appellate review of his Rule 

7(B) issue for failing to state a cogent argument).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 16 of 20

[20] Appellate Rule 7(B) states: “The Court may revise a 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.” That language is clear: Rule 7(B) plainly requires, as this court has 

long acknowledged, “the appellant to demonstrate that his sentence is 

inappropriate in light of both the nature of the offenses and his character.” 

Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Ind. 

Appellate Rule 7(B)) (emphasis original to Williams); see also Anderson v. State, 

989 N.E.2d 823, 827 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (“An appellant bears the burden 

[under Rule 7(B)] of showing both prongs of the inquiry favor revision of her 

sentence.”) (citing Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)), trans. 

denied. 

[21] The majority asserts that Childress does not support that reading of Rule 7(B). 

Slip op. at 6. To the contrary, Childress anticipated and rejected the majority’s 

analysis. In Childress, our supreme court reviewed the context and history of 

Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). The court explained that, under the prior version 

of the Rule, “an appellate court needed to find that a trial court’s sentence was 

‘manifestly unreasonable’ before it could revise the sentence.” Childress, 848 

N.E.2d at 1079.6 The court then stated that the current version of the Rule was 

drafted to permit independent appellate review of sentences “when certain 

 

6

 Like the current version of Rule 7(B), the prior version of the Rule included the phrase “the nature of the 

offense and the character of the offender.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) (2002) (emphasis added).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 17 of 20

broad conditions are satisfied.” Id. (emphasis added). In particular, the court 

stated: 

In essence[,] rather than a procedural barrier over which a 

defendant must climb in order to be heard, the Rule articulates a 

standard of review designed as guidance for appellate courts. 

Of course[,] a defendant must persuade the appellate court that 

his or her sentence has met this inappropriateness standard of 

review. . . .

Id. at 1080. In other words, the Childress court expressly declared that Rule 7(B) 

establishes the necessary “conditions”—plural—that an appellant “must 

persuade the appellate court” have been “satisfied” to meet “this 

inappropriateness standard of review.”7 Id. And those conditions, plainly 

stated in the Rule, are both the nature of the offense and the character of the 

offender. App. R. 7(B).

[22] Nonetheless, the majority declares that Rule 7(B) requires only that 

“we . . . must consider both prongs in our assessment” and that it does not 

require “that the defendant must necessarily prove both of those prongs . . . .” 

Slip op. at 8. The majority’s declaration is consistent with only half of Childress. 

That is, the majority recognizes that Rule 7(B) “articulates a standard of review 

 

7

 In Childress, our supreme court used “conditions” as a synonym for “elements,” each of which must be 

satisfied before this court can exercise its authority under the Rule. See Webster’s 3d New Int’l Dictionary 

473 (2002) (a “condition” is a “prerequisite” or “circumstance that is essential to the . . . occurrence of 

something else”). Contrary to what the majority’s analysis implies, a “condition” is not a “factor.” 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 18 of 20

designed as guidance for appellate courts.” Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1080. But 

the majority disregards our supreme court’s further admonition that it is 

incumbent on the appellant to “persuade the appellate court” that his sentence 

is inappropriate in light of the two “conditions” articulated in the Rule. Id.

[23] Further, the cases relied on by the majority do not declare that the “and” in 

Rule 7(B) really means “or.” In only one instance has the Indiana Supreme 

Court revised an appellant’s sentence even though the appellant made no 

argument on appeal with respect to his character. Hamilton v. State, 955 N.E.2d 

723, 726-27 (Ind. 2011). But the supreme court’s opinion in Hamilton did not 

analyze Rule 7(B) or disapprove of any case law, such as Childress, Ford, or 

Williams, and this court has continued to rely on those cases well after Hamilton. 

E.g., Simmons v. State, 999 N.E.2d 1005, 1013 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (following 

Williams and holding that the appellant’s failure to argue both prongs of Rule 

7(B) resulted in waiver), trans. denied. 

[24] Indeed, no subsequent Indiana appellate court decision has relied on Hamilton

for the proposition that it overrules prior case law or otherwise modifies wellsettled Rule 7(B) jurisprudence. Neither did the Hamilton court state that it 

meant to rewrite Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Given the frequency with which 

the bench and the bar encounter Rule 7(B), had our supreme court intended its 

holding in Hamilton to break new ground it would have explained as much. 

Absent such a declaration or a revised analytical framework, we cannot assume 

that the Hamilton court intended to rewrite Rule 7(B) by adjudication. And it is 

not our prerogative, as an intermediate appellate court, to rewrite the Rule.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 19 of 20

[25] This is not a semantic or grammatical quibble. This is significant. If a court on 

appeal need only “consider” one or the other conditions of Rule 7(B), it dilutes 

our standard of review. Appellate revision of a sentence under Rule 7(B) is 

intended to be an exception reserved for those rare cases in which the defendant 

can satisfy both conditions. See, e.g., Satterfield v. State, 33 N.E.3d 344, 355 (Ind. 

2015). Indeed, the purpose of our review is to “leaven the outliers.” Cardwell v. 

State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). If the defendant were allowed to 

address only one of those two conditions, his burden would be reduced by half, 

and, in effect, we would review and revise sentences that are not outliers.

[26] Here, Connor presents no argument on appeal that his sentence should be 

revised in light of the nature of his offense. Rather, he argues that his sentence 

is inappropriate only in light of his character. Connor has entirely failed to 

address a condition of Rule 7(B)—the nature of the offense—required for this 

court to review and revise his sentence, and it is not our place to make that 

argument on Connor’s behalf or to disregard his failure to make that argument 

for himself. As such, I conclude that Connor has not met his burden to 

demonstrate that his sentence satisfies the inappropriateness standard of review, 

and Connor has forfeited our review of that issue.

[27] Accordingly, I concur only in the result and cannot agree that an appellant no 

longer carries the burden of persuasion under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) to 

demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate in accordance with the plain 

meaning of that Rule. Rather, I would follow Childress, Ford, Anderson, 

Simmons, Williams, and the substantial number of similar cases that hold that it 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 03A05-1511-CR-1893 | August 2, 2016 Page 20 of 20

is an appellant’s burden to demonstrate that his sentence has met the 

inappropriateness standard of review as defined in the Rule.8 As Connor did 

not argue that his sentence is inappropriate in light of both the nature of his 

offense and his character, I would hold that he forfeited our review of his 

sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

 

8 Other published opinions that acknowledge this proposition include the following: Swallow v. State, 19 

N.E.3d 396, 402 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied; Gil v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1231, 1237-38 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2013); Mateo v. State, 981 N.E.2d 59, 74 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied; and Paul v. State, 971 N.E.2d 172, 

177 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). However, the substantial body of cases in which this issue arises are disposed of by 

this court as memorandum decisions using a waiver-waiver notwithstanding analysis.