Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1603-CR-459 | September 13, 2016 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

Leanna Weissmann

Lawrenceburg, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Larry D. Allen

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jeremy M. Hines,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

September 13, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

21A01-1603-CR-459

Appeal from the Fayette Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Matthew R. Cox, 

Special Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

21C01-1304-FC-325

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1603-CR-459 | September 13, 2016 Page 2 of 5

[1] Jeremy Hines appeals the sentence he received for Class C Felony Nonsupport 

of a Dependent Child.1 He asks us to revise his sentence. Finding his sentence 

not inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts

[2] Hines has three children with his ex-wife, Amy Hines, plus an additional 

biological child and two additional stepchildren. As part of their 2007 divorce, 

Hines was ordered to pay $40 of child support per week for the three children. 

From February 16, 2011, through April 19, 2013, Hines did not pay child 

support—over this period of time, Hines incurred an arrearage of $18,268.

[3] On April 24, 2013, the State charged Hines with Class C felony nonsupport of a 

dependent child. On January 16, 2016, Hines pleaded guilty as charged. That 

same day, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. Hines presented evidence 

that he had difficulty finding permanent employment and earning steady

income. He testified that he lived with his fiancée, who worked a full-time job 

at a convenience store while he watched her children at home. He also 

informed the trial court that his fiancée would be able to help him make child 

support payments until he found a job. The trial court took Hines’s sentencing 

under advisement.

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-46-1-5(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1603-CR-459 | September 13, 2016 Page 3 of 5

[4] Before the trial court issued its sentencing order, Hines was arrested for 

allegedly battering his fiancée in the presence of a child and interfering with the 

reporting of a crime. On February 12, 2016, the trial court held another 

sentencing hearing during which it took judicial notice of the new charges. 

Hines’s pre-sentence investigation report (PSI) also disclosed a lengthy criminal 

history. The trial court sentenced Hines to seven years with three years 

executed and four years suspended to probation. Hines now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Hines has one argument on appeal, namely, that his sentence is inappropriate. 

Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) 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 principal role of such review is to 

attempt to leaven the outliers, but not to achieve a perceived “correct” sentence. 

Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Sentencing is principally a 

discretionary function in which the trial court’s judgment should receive 

considerable deference. Id. at 1222. The defendant bears the burden of 

showing us that his sentence is inappropriate. Kennedy v. State, 934 N.E.2d 779, 

788 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

[6] We initially note that Hines pleaded guilty to a Class C felony, which at the 

time carried a sentence between two and eight years, with an advisory sentence 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1603-CR-459 | September 13, 2016 Page 4 of 5

of four years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6. Thus, Hines’s sentence of seven years is 

above the advisory sentence but below the maximum sentence.

[7] Turning to the nature of Hines’s offense, he failed to provide financial support 

to three of his children as ordered by a court. Those three children were legally 

entitled to over $18,000 of monetary support from Hines but, because of his

nonpayment, their needs will either go unmet or will be passed on to somebody 

else. Although Hines testified that he has not been able to hold a job, he did 

not provide any particular reason for his inconsistent employment. The longest 

Hines has worked at one job was nine months, and that took place roughly 

twenty years ago. We also note that Hines never requested a child support 

modification due to any changed financial circumstances. Hines has not 

carried his burden of showing us that the nature of his offense renders his sevenyear sentence inappropriate.

[8] Turning to Hines’s character, we find a man with a lengthy criminal history. 

Hines has four felony convictions and six misdemeanor convictions. Among 

his convictions are two prior convictions for nonsupport of his dependent 

children, showing that nonsupport is a persistent character flaw. Even worse, 

shortly after testifying that his fiancée—the biological mother of one of his 

children and the sole income-earner in the household—could help him pay his 

child support arrearage, he was arrested for battering her in the presence of 

children. This is not the action of a man who intends to do whatever he can to 

provide for his children. We are not persuaded to revise his sentence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1603-CR-459 | September 13, 2016 Page 5 of 5

[9] Finally, our Supreme Court has instructed us to focus not only on the aggregate 

length of a sentence, but also consider “whether a portion of the sentence is 

ordered suspended or otherwise crafted using any of the variety of sentencing 

tools available to the trial judge.” Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 

(Ind. 2010). One of those tools is probation. Id. We note that, although Hines 

received an aggregate sentence of seven years, the executed portion of three 

years is actually below the advisory sentence of four years. In light of the 

nature of Hines’s offense and his character, Hines’s mostly suspended sentence 

is not inappropriate.

[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Najam, J., concur.