Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1706-CR-1342 | April 19, 2018 Page 1 of 6

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

Mark Small

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Justin F. Roebel

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Timothy Hartwell,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 19, 2018

Court of Appeals Cause No.

84A01-1706-CR-1342

Appeal from the Vigo Superior 

Court

The Honorable Michael Rader, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos. 84D05-1405-

FB-1303 & 84D05-1605-F5-1155

Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1706-CR-1342 | April 19, 2018 Page 2 of 6

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Defendant, Timothy Hartwell (Hartwell), appeals his sentence 

following his conviction after pleading guilty to stalking, a Class B felony, Ind. 

Code § 35-45-10-5; and intimidation, a Level 5 felony, I.C. § 35-45-2-1(2).

[2] We affirm.

ISSUE

[3] Hartwell presents a single issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether 

Hartwell’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his 

character.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] On May 16, 2014, the State filed an Information in Cause Number 84D06-

1404-FB-1303 (FB-1303), charging Hartwell with Count I, stalking, a Class D 

felony, and Count II, stalking, a Class B felony. On February 13, 2015, 

Hartwell filed a Motion for Examination to Determine Competency to Stand 

Trial. On March 6, 2015, the trial court ordered Hartwell’s psychiatric 

evaluation to be conducted by two doctors. On May 12, 2015, a competency 

hearing was conducted and Hartwell was found mentally incompetent to stand 

trial and was committed to a mental health facility. 

[5] On September 24, 2015, the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration 

reported to the trial court that Hartwell was competent to stand trial. On 

February 29, 2016, Hartwell again requested a mental health evaluation. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1706-CR-1342 | April 19, 2018 Page 3 of 6

Again, the trial court appointed two doctors to conduct Hartwell’s psychiatric 

evaluation. 

[6] In April 2016, Hartwell sent death threat letters to the presiding judge in Cause 

Number FB-1303, and also to his attorney. On May 2, 2016, the State filed an 

Information in Cause Number 84D05-1605-F5-1155 (F5-1155), charging

Hartwell with a Level 5 felony intimidation offense toward the presiding judge 

in FB-1303, and a Level 6 felony intimidation offense toward his attorney. On 

April 20, 2016, the trial judge in FB-1303 recused himself. On May 5, 2016, 

Cause Number FB-1303 was transferred into F5-1155. On May 10, 2016, the 

trial court conducted a competency hearing for both Causes. At the close of the 

hearing, the trial court determined that Hartwell was incompetent to stand trial,

and he was again transferred to a mental health facility. On January 30, 2017, 

the trial court found that Hartwell had regained competency and set both 

Causes for trial. 

[7] On May 2, 2017, Hartwell and the State entered into a plea agreement, where 

Hartwell agreed to plead guilty but mentally ill to Class B felony stalking under 

FB-1303, and to Level 5 felony intimidation under F5-1155. In exchange, the

State agreed to dismiss the other Class B stalking charge in FB-1303 and the 

Level 6 felony intimidation charge in F5-1155. The plea agreement capped the 

sentence for the Class B felony stalking charge to twelve years, and four years 

for the Level 5 felony intimidation offense. On the same day, the trial court 

determined that a factual basis existed for Hartwell’s charged offenses, and the 

trial court accepted Hartwell’s plea of guilty but mentally ill. On May 31, 2017, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1706-CR-1342 | April 19, 2018 Page 4 of 6

the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing and sentenced Hartwell to 

concurrent terms of twelve years for the stalking charge and four years for the 

intimidation charge to be executed in the Department of Correction (DOC).

[8] Hartwell now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

[9] Hartwell claims that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offenses and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) empowers us to 

independently review and revise sentences authorized by statute if, after due 

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

nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Reid v. State, 876 N.E.2d 

1114, 1116 (Ind. 2007). The “nature of offense” compares the defendant’s 

actions with the required showing to sustain a conviction under the charged 

offense, while the “character of the offender” permits a broader consideration of 

the defendant’s character. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008); 

Douglas v. State, 878 N.E.2d 873, 881 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). An appellant bears 

the burden of showing that both prongs of the inquiry favor a revision of his 

sentence. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Whether we 

regard a sentence as appropriate at the end of the day turns on our sense of the 

culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to 

others, and a myriad of other considerations that come to light in a given case. 

Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224. Our court focuses on “the length of the aggregate 

sentence and how it is to be served.” Id. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1706-CR-1342 | April 19, 2018 Page 5 of 6

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

appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Abbott v. State, 961 N.E.2d 1016, 

1019 (Ind. 2012). For his Class B felony stalking, Hartwell faced a sentencing 

range of six to twenty years, with the advisory sentence being ten. Hartwell 

was sentenced to twelve years. I.C. § 35-50-2-5. Second, for his Level 5 felony

intimidation, Hartwell faced a sentencing range of one to six years, with the 

advisory sentence being three. I.C. § 35-50-2-6. Hartwell was sentenced to four

years.

[11] We first examine the nature of Hartwell’s offenses. The facts of Hartwell’s 

Class B felony stalking conviction under FB-1303 reveal that in separate cause 

numbers, Hartwell had been found guilty but mentally ill in 2013 of a Class C 

felony stalking offense against Megan Loudermilk (Loudermilk). For that Class 

C felony stalking conviction, Hartwell was sentenced to four years in the DOC, 

and a no-contact ordered was issued in favor of Loudermilk. While 

incarcerated, Hartwell had repeated contacts with Loudermilk between 

February of 2013 and May of 2014. Loudermilk reported the contacts which 

prompted the filing of the Class B felony stalking offense against Hartwell in 

FB-1303. Turning to the nature of Hartwell’s Level 5 felony intimidation 

conviction under F5-1155, we find it particularly serious. While incarcerated 

for the stalking offense in FB-1303, Hartwell sent death threat letters to the 

presiding judge and his attorney, and those threats led to the filing of two 

intimidation offenses. Here, we conclude Hartwell’s sentence is not 

inappropriate in light of the egregious nature of his offenses.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1706-CR-1342 | April 19, 2018 Page 6 of 6

[12] With respect to Hartwell’s character, at his sentencing hearing, the trial court 

noted Hartwell’s prior criminal history which included convictions for reckless 

driving, operating while intoxicated, and auto theft. The trial court also noted 

that the stalking offense under FB-1303 was Hartwell’s third stalking offense. 

Specifically, Hartwell had amassed three stalking convictions between 2000 and 

2012. The last stalking conviction in 2012 related to Loudermilk, who was the 

same victim under FB-1303. After due consideration of the trial court’s 

decision and in light of Hartwell’s criminal history, we cannot say that the 

sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offenses and the character of the offender.

CONCLUSION

[13] In sum, we hold that Hartwell’s sentence is not inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offenses and his character.

[14] Affirmed. 

[15] May, J. and Mathias, J. concur