Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A01-1709-CR-2131 |February 19, 2018 Page 1 of 10

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

R. Patrick Magrath

Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP

Madison, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Christina D. Pace

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Chad A. George,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

February 19, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

39A01-1709-CR-2131

Appeal from the Jefferson Circuit

Court

The Honorable Darrell M. Auxier, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

39C01-1512-F4-1235

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A01-1709-CR-2131 |February 19, 2018 Page 2 of 10

[1] Chad A. George appeals his sentence for burglary as a level 3 felony, criminal 

confinement as a level 6 felony, and domestic battery as a class B misdemeanor. 

George raises one issue which is whether his sentence is inappropriate in light 

of the nature of the offense and his character. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In a prior memorandum decision, we summarized the facts of this case as 

follows: 

[T.C.] and George had been in an “on and off relationship” for 

several years. (Tr. at 45.) In November 2015, an incident 

occurred in which George became physically aggressive toward 

[T.C.], including choking her, throwing her, hitting her in the 

face, and attempting to force her to swallow medication. [T.C.] 

sustained some bruising to her face from this altercation.

On December 23, 2015, [T.C.] heard a knock on her apartment 

door, and opened it expecting to see one of her neighbors. 

Instead, George was at the door and said, “Bitch, I bet you didn’t 

think you was [sic] going to see me again.” (Id. at 50.) George 

pushed his way into [T.C.’s] apartment despite her attempts to 

close the door. George said he just wanted to talk to [T.C.]. 

[T.C.] told George to leave her apartment, but he refused. [T.C.] 

could smell alcohol on his breath. George was upset with [T.C.] 

because she was “talking to these other people” and damaging a 

case pending against him. (Id. at 51.)

When [T.C.] attempted to exit the apartment, George shoved 

her, pulled her back by her hair, and caused them both to fall 

back into a table knocking over a candle and breaking a chair. 

George then placed his hands around [T.C.’s] neck. Once 

released, [T.C.] made a run for her door and placed her right 

knee into a gap between the door and the door frame to keep 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A01-1709-CR-2131 |February 19, 2018 Page 3 of 10

George from shutting it. [T.C.] shouted, “No, Chad. No, no, 

no.” (Id. at 52.) 

The pair agreed to walk out of the apartment. Once outside,

[T.C.] attempted to “make a beeline [sic]” for her door, (id.), to 

get back inside her apartment, but George grabbed her with one 

hand on her throat and the other hand pulling her tank top. (Id.) 

A neighbor called 911 after witnessing the altercation and 

hearing [T.C.] screaming. 

[T.C.] began walking toward a gas station because “there’s [sic] 

cameras if anything happens.” (Id. at 53.) George was walking 

after [T.C.] until law enforcement arrived and ordered the pair to 

stop. The pair was instructed to approach Officer Decker. [T.C.] 

approached first, and Officer Decker saw her lip was bloody and 

her shirt was ripped open, exposing her breasts. According to 

Officer Decker, [T.C.] was behaving “excited, scared to death, 

[and] unintelligible.” (Id. at 89.) While [T.C.] waited by the 

patrol car, Officer Decker placed George in handcuffs until other 

officers arrived. Officer Decker detected the smell of alcohol on 

George and observed George was unsteady on his feet, so he 

secured George in the back of the patrol car. 

Officer Decker took [T.C.] back to her apartment and spoke with 

her there. He noticed a broken chair, an upturned end table, and 

candle wax on the carpet. Officer Decker took photographs of 

[T.C.’s] appearance and injuries including: “a defensive wound 

on the forearm,” (id. at 93), blood on her lip, and bruising and 

redness on her face. [T.C.] indicated at trial that the bruising to 

her face “was still healing up from the November incident,” and 

was not from December 23. (Id. at 60.) Officer Decker also 

collected [T.C.’s] torn tank top for evidence.

George v. State, No. 39A01-1612-CR-2740, slip op. at 1-2 (Ind. Ct. App. June 29, 

2017). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A01-1709-CR-2131 |February 19, 2018 Page 4 of 10

[3] The State charged George, as amended, with Count I, burglary as a level 3 

felony; Count II, criminal confinement as a level 5 felony; Count III, attempted 

strangulation as a level 6 felony; and Count IV, domestic battery as a class A

misdemeanor. A jury found George guilty on Counts I, II, and IV and not 

guilty on Count III. 

[4] On October 5, 2016, the court held a sentencing hearing. On November 3, 

2016, the court issued its sentencing order. The court found the following 

aggravating factors: George “has a 2014 conviction for Criminal Confinement 

as a class C felony” with respect to which he “confined the same victim herein, 

[T.C.]. without her consent, which resulted in bodily injury” and for which he 

“was sentenced to and served a four-year sentence,” demonstrating that his 

incarceration “did not rehabilitate him and that a short period of incarceration 

is not likely to rehabilitate him”; that he “has a prior firearm conviction,”

demonstrating that he “poses a greater threat to others”; and that he “was out 

on bond on charges of Battery Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury and 

Strangulation in Jennings County,” demonstrating that “he has a strong 

proclivity for domestic abuse and is a danger to others.” Appellant’s Appendix 

Volume 2 at 185-186. The court did not find any mitigating factors. The court 

sentenced George to twelve years for his burglary conviction, four years for his 

criminal confinement conviction, and one year for his domestic battery

conviction, ordered that his sentences for burglary and criminal confinement be 

served consecutive to each other, and ordered that his sentence for domestic 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A01-1709-CR-2131 |February 19, 2018 Page 5 of 10

battery be served concurrently with the other sentences, for an aggregate 

sentence of sixteen years. 

[5] On appeal, we found the evidence was sufficient to support George’s burglary 

conviction. George, No. 39A01-1612-CR-2740, slip op. at 3. We further found 

that George’s convictions of burglary resulting in bodily injury, criminal 

confinement resulting in bodily injury, and domestic battery were all proven 

using the same bodily injury and that the State conceded this subjected him to 

double jeopardy. Id. We accordingly reduced George’s conviction for criminal 

confinement from a level 5 felony to a level 6 felony and his conviction for 

domestic battery from a class A misdemeanor to a class B misdemeanor and 

remanded for the trial court to resentence him. Id. George also argued that his 

aggregate sentence was inappropriate, but we did not consider the issue as we 

remanded for resentencing. Id. at 3 n.4. 

[6] On remand, the trial court adopted the findings regarding mitigating and 

aggravating circumstances as set forth in its November 3, 2016 sentencing 

order, entered George’s conviction for criminal confinement as a level 6 felony 

and sentenced him to two years for that conviction, entered his conviction for 

domestic battery as a class B misdemeanor and sentenced him to six months for 

that conviction, and ordered these sentences to be served concurrently with 

each other and consecutive to his twelve-year sentence for burglary as a level 3 

felony for an aggregate sentence of fourteen years. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A01-1709-CR-2131 |February 19, 2018 Page 6 of 10

Discussion

[7] The issue is whether George’s aggregate sentence is inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offense and his character. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that 

we “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of 

the trial court’s decision, [we find] that the sentence is inappropriate in light of 

the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Under this rule, the 

burden is on the defendant to persuade the appellate court that his or her 

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

[8] George argues that he was thirty-one years old at sentencing, that his conviction 

for dealing in a sawed-off shotgun was five years old, that his prior offenses 

were caused in whole or in part by his ongoing alcohol abuse issues, and that 

while incarcerated awaiting trial he engaged in substance abuse / mental health 

counseling. He argues that he served in the military, was steadily employed 

until a few weeks prior to his arrest, maintained good conduct in jail while 

awaiting trial and held a trustee position, and was the sole caregiver for his 

ailing mother. He also argues that T.C.’s injuries and fear, while upsetting and 

regrettable, do not exceed the scope of the impact anticipated by the crime and 

nothing in the commission of the crime exceeded the elements of the offense as 

to warrant an enhanced penalty. 

[9] The State maintains that nothing about the nature of the offenses warrants a 

revision of George’s sentence, that T.C. was terrified and knew if she stayed in 

her house that she would be dead, and that T.C. suffered flashbacks and 

emotional trauma and would not answer her door unless she was armed with a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A01-1709-CR-2131 |February 19, 2018 Page 7 of 10

weapon. The State further maintains George’s convictions and charges reflect 

poorly on his character, arguing that he had a prior felony conviction for the 

criminal confinement of the same victim, had two misdemeanor convictions, 

and had pending charges in Jennings County. The State also argues, despite 

knowing he had a substance abuse addiction, George never sought treatment on 

his own. 

[10] A person who commits a level 3 felony shall be imprisoned for a term between 

three and sixteen years with the advisory sentence being nine years, Ind. Code § 

35-50-2-5, a person who commits a level 6 felony shall be imprisoned for a term 

between six months and two and one-half years with the advisory sentence 

being one year, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7, and a person who commits a class B 

misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a term of not more than 180 days. Ind. 

Code § 35-50-3-3. 

[11] Our review of the nature of the offenses reveals that, a month after George and 

T.C. were in a physical altercation, George showed up at T.C.’s residence 

smelling of alcohol and said, “[b]itch, I bet you didn’t think you was going to 

see me again,” pushed his way into T.C.’s residence despite her attempts to stop 

him, refused to leave, stated that T.C. was hurting his case by talking to other 

people, shoved her, pulled her back by her hair and caused them to fall and 

break a chair, and placed his hands around her neck. Transcript at 50. After 

they exited the residence and T.C. attempted to reenter the home, George 

grabbed her throat and pulled her tank top, ripping it down to nearly her 

stomach. Officer Decker testified that he “immediately [saw] the blood on 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A01-1709-CR-2131 |February 19, 2018 Page 8 of 10

[T.C.’s] lip and her . . . shirt ripped to expose her breast” and that T.C. was 

“[e]xcited, scared to death, [and] unintelligible when she spoke.” Id. at 89. 

T.C. sustained injuries including a defensive wound on her forearm and blood 

on her lip. When asked her reason for agreeing to go outside, T.C. replied 

“[b]ecause I knew if I stayed in that apartment and that door shut again I 

wouldn’t live to tell anything.” Id. at 78. At sentencing, T.C. testified that “to 

this day I can’t handle anybody knocking on my door without coming without 

a weapon because I think it’s him.” Id. at 176. One of T.C.’s neighbors 

testified that he heard a loud scream, looked across the street, and observed a 

woman struggling and that it appeared she was being dragged in and was being 

choked. He testified that he yelled across the street to ask if she needed help, 

she answered yes, the situation seemed very serious, and he feared for her life. 

[12] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that, according to the 

presentence investigation report (the “PSI”), George’s criminal history includes 

dealing in a sawed-off shotgun in 2010 for which he received one year of 

incarceration with 345 days suspended; public intoxication in 2012 for which he 

received four days of incarceration; and criminal confinement resulting in 

bodily injury to anyone other than the defendant as a class C felony in 2014 for 

which he was sentenced to four years of incarceration. The PSI further 

indicates that George was charged with battery resulting in serious bodily injury 

as a level 5 felony, strangulation as a level 6 felony, and criminal mischief as a 

class B misdemeanor in Jennings County in 2015. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A01-1709-CR-2131 |February 19, 2018 Page 9 of 10

[13] The PSI provides that, at the time of his arrest, George had been unemployed 

for about two weeks and that he enlisted in the Army in 2008 and received an 

Other than Honorable Discharge. The PSI provides, with respect to substance 

abuse, that George reported that he first drank alcohol at age thirteen but did 

not start to drink regularly until after his discharge from the military; he has 

previously reported he was a “functioning alcoholic” and his alcohol use had 

never caused him any problems with employment; he reported he first used 

marijuana at age sixteen but denies being a regular user; he has completed 

ADEPT, a substance abuse education program; he stated he was drinking on 

the night he was arrested; and he has not sought or received any other 

treatment. Appellant’s Appendix Volume 4 at 7. 

[14] T.C. indicated that she was the victim of George’s previous criminal 

confinement offense. George indicated that he was an excessive drinker, that 

he attended classes in jail and received a certificate, and that he would benefit 

from additional substance abuse treatment. George indicated he was a trustee 

for about two months while in jail and introduced notes from a captain and a 

sergeant at the jail regarding his good behavior while in jail. George also 

indicated that his mother was in poor health and that, if the court were to 

release him, he would be able to help her travel to her appointments. On crossexamination, George indicated he did not seek any substance abuse treatment 

on his own. He indicated he was released from being a trustee because he 

allegedly drank hand sanitizer. He acknowledged telling his mother “[y]ou 

leave me out to dry, mom. I swear to God I’ll never f------ speak to you again” 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A01-1709-CR-2131 |February 19, 2018 Page 10 of 10

because he wanted paid counsel. Transcript at 157. When asked the reason he 

received an other than honorable discharge from the military, George testified 

“[f]ailure to adjust” and “[f]ailure to adjust to the military way of life I guess 

would be the best description.” Id. at 162. He indicated that he was in the 

Army for about three years, he was charged with being AWOL during that 

time, and he was AWOL for months. 

[15] After due consideration, we conclude that George has not sustained his burden 

of establishing that his aggregate sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature 

of the offense and his character. 

Conclusion

[16] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm George’s aggregate sentence. 

[17] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Riley, J., concur.