Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 35A05-1412-CR-572 | July 17, 2015 Page 1 of 5

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

Jeremy K. Nix

Matheny, Hahn, Denman & Nix, LLP

Huntington, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Christina D. Pace

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Curtis D. Keplinger,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff,

July 17, 2015

Court of Appeals Cause No.

35A05-1412-CR-572

Appeal from the Huntington Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Thomas M. Hakes, 

Judge

Cause No. 35C01-1406-FB-178

Robb, Judge.

Case Summary and Issue

[1] Following a jury trial, Curtis Keplinger was convicted of attempted robbery, a 

Class B felony, and found to be an habitual offender. He raises one issue on 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 35A05-1412-CR-572 | July 17, 2015 Page 2 of 5

appeal: whether his thirty-five year sentence is inappropriate in light of the 

nature of his offense and his character. Concluding Keplinger’s sentence is not 

inappropriate, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Keplinger began dating Chasity Griffith in June of 2013. In July of that year, 

Griffith suffered a ruptured gallbladder and was hospitalized for three months. 

When she was released from the hospital, she began living with Keplinger. 

Griffith was prescribed certain pain medications, including fentanyl and 

Percocet, which Keplinger regularly asked her to give to him for his own use. 

[3] On June 29, 2014, Keplinger asked Griffith for some of her medication, but she 

refused. The two started to argue, and Keplinger attempted to snatch Griffith’s 

purse away from her. Keplinger chased Griffith around the living room, 

grabbed her throat from behind, and placed his hand over her nose and mouth, 

preventing her from breathing. Griffith fled from the house and called her 

father, who took Griffith to the police station to report the incident. 

[4] The State charged Keplinger with Count 1, robbery, a Class B felony; Count 2, 

strangulation, a Class D felony; and Count 3, attempted robbery, a Class B 

felony. The State also alleged that Keplinger was an habitual offender. A jury 

trial was held over the course of three days in October 2014. Keplinger was 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 35A05-1412-CR-572 | July 17, 2015 Page 3 of 5

found guilty of Count 3,1 and he admitted to being an habitual offender. The 

trial court imposed a fifteen-year sentence on Count 3 and a twenty-year 

enhancement for Keplinger’s habitual offender adjudication, resulting in an 

aggregate executed sentence of thirty-five years imprisonment. This appeal 

followed. 

Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review

[5] Keplinger contends that his thirty-five year sentence is inappropriate. Indiana 

Appellate Rule 7(B) provides appellate courts with the authority to revise a 

defendant’s 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.” It is the defendant’s burden to persuade the 

reviewing court that the sentence is inappropriate. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 

864, 876 (Ind. 2012).

II. Keplinger’s Sentence

[6] “When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the 

starting point to determine the appropriateness of a sentence.” Holloway v. State, 

950 N.E.2d 803, 806 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). At the time of Keplinger’s offense, a 

Class B felony carried an advisory sentence of ten years, with a range of six to 

 

1

 Keplinger was acquitted of Count 1, and a mistrial was declared on Count 2. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 35A05-1412-CR-572 | July 17, 2015 Page 4 of 5

twenty years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5(a). In addition, the habitual offender 

statute provided that “[t]he court shall sentence a person found to be a habitual 

offender to an additional fixed term that is not less than the advisory sentence 

for the underlying offense nor more than three (3) times the advisory sentence 

for the underlying offense.” Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(h) (effective through June 

30, 2014). Thus, Keplinger’s habitual offender enhancement required him to 

receive an additional term of at least ten and as many as thirty years. Keplinger 

received fifteen years for his Class B felony and an additional twenty years for 

his habitual offender enhancement. 

[7] We find the nature of Keplinger’s offense to be slightly more egregious than an 

ordinary attempted robbery. Keplinger not only put Griffith in fear for her 

safety but also attempted to take her pain medication by force, grabbing her by 

the throat and covering her nose and mouth to prevent her from breathing. 

Additionally, the victim was in a weakened condition due to her illness, and 

Keplinger attempted to take advantage of her illness and satisfy his own base 

urges without regard for her need for her prescribed medication.

[8] As to Keplinger’s character, the trial court referenced his extensive criminal 

history, his violation of a no-contact order during the proceedings, and his

attempts to dissuade Griffith from testifying against him at trial. In addition to 

his juvenile history, Keplinger’s adult criminal history consists of five prior 

felony convictions—including battery, burglary, and theft—and several 

misdemeanor convictions. The nature of Keplinger’s past offenses and their 

similarity to his most recent crime reflects unfavorably on his character. See 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 35A05-1412-CR-572 | July 17, 2015 Page 5 of 5

Bryant v. State, 841 N.E.2d 1154, 1156 (Ind. 2006) (stating the weight of an 

individual’s criminal history is “measured by the number of prior convictions 

and their gravity, by their proximity or distance from the present offense, and 

by any similarity or dissimilarity to the present offense that might reflect on a 

defendant’s culpability.”). 

[9] Keplinger points to the fact that he took care of Griffith when she was ill. 

Although that may reflect positively on his character, in light of his criminal 

history and demonstrated disrespect for the justice system, it is not enough to 

persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate.

Conclusion

[10] Concluding Keplinger’s thirty-five year sentence is not inappropriate in light of 

the nature of his offense and his character, we affirm.

[11] Affirmed.

May, J., and Mathias, J., concur.