Elijah Mills, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] This case returns to our court following multiple remands on double jeopardy grounds and a resentencing. Elijah Mills (“Mills”) now appeals, following a resentencing hearing, his thirty-nine-year sentence imposed by the trial court for his Level 1 felony conviction for neglect of a dependent resulting in death or catastrophic injury.¹ Mills argues that his sentence is inappropriate. Concluding that his sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether Mills’ sentence is inappropriate.

Facts 2

[3] The facts of the case, as set forth by our Court in Mills’ initial appeal, are as follows:

L.M., born in January 2015, was the biological son of Mills and Brittany Pearson. In 2018, L.M. lived with Mills and his girlfriend, Taylor Abrams, with Pearson exercising parenting time. In March of that year, Pearson noticed bruises on L.M.’s back, buttocks, and thighs and took him to the hospital. The Department of Child Services (DCS) was notified, and Ne'Cole Whyde, a DCS case manager, investigated. Whyde spoke with Mills, who admitted he “whooped” L.M. with a belt for saying “damn.” Tr. Vol. II p. 14. Whyde concluded Mills caused the bruising, substantiated the claim of physical abuse, and removed L.M. from the home. A few days later, Mills retracted his statements and told Whyde that the bruising was caused by a “fall down the stairs.” Tr. Vol. III p. 149. L.M. was returned to Mills's care in April.

In September, Pearson noticed bruises on L.M.’s lower abdomen and thighs. The next month, DCS Family Case Manager (FCM) Thomas Brown investigated, but Mills initially refused to speak with him without an attorney. Based on the timing of the injuries, Brown determined L.M. received them while in Mills's care. Mills later suggested to Brown that this bruising may have occurred when L.M. was playing with another child. Nonetheless, Brown had “severe concerns with [L.M.’s] safety in the care of [Mills] and [Abrams]” and made a formal report raising claims of physical abuse against them. Id. at 173. However, the claims were never substantiated, and the matter was closed a few weeks later.

In the summer and fall of 2019, Pearson again began noticing bruises on L.M. and that he was getting “skinnier.” Id. at 113. Around this time, several other people expressed concern about L.M. Rumer Beck, Mills's friend, was asked to babysit L.M., and when she arrived Abrams said that L.M. was being punished and had to stand in the corner with his arms raised. When Beck expressed concern about the punishment, she was told “that was what they wanted for their child.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 127. Later that night, Mills returned home “angry” and “[f]rustrated” and took L.M. into a bedroom, where Beck heard “swat[ting]” and “smacking” sounds and L.M. “crying out for his mother” for about “25 minutes.” Id. at 115-16, 213.

In August, law enforcement conducted a welfare check at Mills's apartment after Austin Murrell, who lived in the apartment below Mills, reported hearing “a kid screaming for help” from Mills's apartment and a male voice “yelling [L.M.’s] name” several times. Id. at 168, 169. Officers noted nothing of concern during the check. In October, Tamara Hodgkin, another friend of Mills, became so concerned about L.M. that she made a report to DCS. She reported that Mills and Abrams withheld food and water from L.M. as punishment and would taunt him with food and that L.M. had bruises on his face and was limping. DCS attempted to investigate these claims, but Mills was uncooperative and would not allow photographs or for L.M. to talk to DCS.

Around 7:00 a.m. on November 12, the Noblesville Police Department received a call regarding a child who was in cardiac arrest at Mills's home. Officers arrived to find Mills performing chest compressions on L.M., who was unresponsive and lying on his back on the living-room floor. Abrams was also in the home and had called 911. When medical personnel arrived, they noted L.M. had bruising across his face, torso, and inner thighs, all at various stages of healing, as well as abrasions to his knees and scarring “all over his body.” Tr. Vol. III p. 73. L.M., who was nearly five years old, appeared severely malnourished and weighed only twenty-nine pounds, approximately the size of a two-year-old.

L.M. was taken to Riverview Hospital, where he was placed on a breathing tube and then quickly transferred to Riley Hospital for Children due to the severity of his injuries. After “extensive” testing, doctors determined he suffered “subdural hematomas overlying both hemispheres of his brain,” bleeding outside the spinal cord, retinal hemorrhages, heterotopic ossification on his thighs and back, and a “healing injury” of the left forearm. Id. at 236-37. Doctors determined he was “critically ill,” his likelihood of “meaningful neurological and developmental recovery was very low,” and it was “unlikely that he would survive.” Tr. Vol. IV pp. 4-5.

Mills gave various explanations for L.M.’s injuries. He told medical personnel who first responded to the home that L.M. had not experienced any trauma or accidents that could explain his injuries. He told FCM Holly McCombs, who went to Riley Hospital after a report was filed with DCS, that he had spanked L.M. that morning for wetting himself and that—as forms of discipline—he “pinch[ed]” L.M. on the thigh and forced him to exercise. Id. at 230. When interviewed by police at the hospital, he claimed L.M. had been experiencing headaches and had recently fallen in the home and at the park. The next day, Mills called Detective Michael Haskett of the Noblesville Police Department and gave more information about the time leading up to the 911 call. He stated that morning he forced L.M. to run as a punishment, that L.M. fell while running and hit his head, that this happened several times, and that Mills made L.M. continue to run even after the falls. He also stated he “popped” L.M. on the head when he refused to run anymore. Ex. 86, 2:38. Later in the call, the two discussed what could have caused the injuries, and Detective Haskett told Mills to let him know if he could think of anything else. Mills then reiterated that L.M. fell “on his face” while running. Id. at 8:09.

The State charged Mills with Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in catastrophic injury or death and Level 3 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury to a person less than fourteen years old.

L.M. spent almost two months at Riley Hospital, and his condition improved enough that he could breathe on his own. In January 2020, he was released from the hospital and placed in foster care. However, he never regained the ability to walk, talk, or eat, his neurological function did not improve, and he suffered from seizures and often struggled to breathe on his own. In November, L.M. contracted pneumonia and was placed on a ventilator. He continued to deteriorate, and doctors at Riley Hospital determined aggressive medical care would not be in L.M.’s best interests, given his poor quality of life and limited life span. L.M.’s breathing tube was removed on December 13, 2020, and soon after he died. L.M.’s cause of death was listed as respiratory failure with traumatic brain injury as an underlying condition. Thereafter, the State amended the charging information to add a count of Level 2 felony battery resulting in death to a person less than fourteen years old.

In September 2021, the State filed notice of its intention to present evidence of the 2018 DCS investigations. Mills objected under Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b). Both parties submitted briefs on the issue, and a hearing was held. In part, the State argued that the evidence was relevant to show that L.M.’s injuries were not the result of an accident. The trial court then issued an order permitting the introduction of the evidence to disprove Mills's contentions that L.M. “accidentally was injured.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 158.

A jury trial was held in April 2022. Over Mills's objections, multiple witnesses testified about the March and October 2018 DCS investigations. Dr. Ralph Hicks, a pediatrician specializing in child abuse at Riley Hospital, testified that he was asked by DCS in March 2018 to opine on the cause of the bruising on L.M.’s buttocks, thighs, and lower back. Dr. Hicks testified that Mills's explanation for the bruising—that L.M. had fallen down the stairs—was not consistent with the injuries and that the bruising appeared to have been caused by trauma with an object and was consistent with “inflicted injury.” Tr. Vol. III p. 222. He also testified that in October 2018 he was asked to consult on L.M.’s case and again opined that the amount of bruising and its location did not match Mills's explanation.

Finally, Dr. Hicks testified about the injuries sustained by L.M. in November 2019. He noted the injuries to L.M.’s thighs and back were caused by “significant or repeated trauma” and that these injuries and the forearm injury were likely older as they had partially healed. Tr. Vol. IV p. 3. As for the bleeding in L.M.’s brain, spine, and eyes, Dr. Hicks stated these injuries were caused by “forceful” blunt trauma and could not be explained by L.M. falling. Tr. Vol. III p. 247. Dr. Hicks also testified that when admitted to Riley Hospital L.M. had “chronic, ongoing malnutrition.” Id. at 238. Ultimately, Dr. Hicks opined that L.M.’s injuries “were characteristic of nonaccidental inflicted trauma.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 7.

Several witnesses also testified about their interactions with Mills on November 11 and 12. Beck testified that Mills, Abrams, and L.M. ate at the restaurant where she worked on the evening of November 11 and that L.M. seemed fine. She further testified that she called Mills around 2:00 a.m. the next morning, he said he was punishing L.M. for “soil[ing] himself,” and she could hear L.M. “running” and “whimper[ing]” in the background. Id. at 120. Murrell, Mills's downstairs neighbor, testified that around 2:00 a.m. that morning he heard “a kid running back and forth” while “crying and screaming” in Mills's apartment. Id. at 173. He then heard a male voice telling the child to “shut the f*ck up.” Id. at 174.

The State also presented the phone call between Mills and Detective Haskett in which Mills admitted that he punished L.M. in the early morning of November 12 by making him run laps in his soiled clothing and that he hit L.M. on the head. Finally, the State played a jail call between Mills and a friend in which Mills talked about the case and stated, “I'm not totally innocent here.” Ex. 78, 0:32-0:34.

The jury found Mills guilty of all three counts. At sentencing, Mills asked the court to enter judgment only on Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in catastrophic injury or death, arguing that double jeopardy precluded convictions for all three offenses because Level 2 felony battery resulting in death and Level 3 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury are “lesser included[s]” of the Level 1 felony. Tr. Vol. V p. 136. The State agreed that the Level 2 felony battery should merge into the Level 1 felony neglect but contended that both the Level 1 felony neglect and Level 3 felony battery could stand. The court agreed and entered judgment only as to Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in catastrophic injury or death and Level 3 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury.

Mills v. State, 211 N.E.3d 22, 26–29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), vacated, 228 N.E.3d 1081 (Ind. 2024).

[4] Ultimately, the trial court sentenced Mills to thirty (30) years for his Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in catastrophic injury or death conviction and nine (9) years for his Level 3 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively at the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”), for an aggregate thirty-nine (39) year sentence.

[5] Mills appealed and argued, among other issues, that his convictions violated double jeopardy. Our Court affirmed his convictions in May 2023. In June 2023, Mills petitioned for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. In March 2024, the Indiana Supreme Court issued its opinion in A.W. v. State, 229 N.E.3d 1060 (Ind. 2024). In A.W., the Indiana Supreme Court clarified and modified Indiana's double jeopardy analysis. Three days after A.W. was handed down, the Indiana Supreme Court remanded Mills’ case back to our Court “to reconsider [his double jeopardy argument] in light of A.W.” Mills, 228 N.E.3d at 1081. After receiving supplemental briefing in which the State conceded that Mills’ convictions violated double jeopardy, our Court remanded the case back to the trial court for sentencing on only the Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in catastrophic injury or death.

[6] In January 2025, the trial court held Mills’ second sentencing hearing. The trial court ³ examined, among many other items, the presentence investigation report (“the PSI”) filed by the probation department in May 2022. The PSI revealed that Mills had two prior misdemeanors for driving while suspended. The PSI also contained a statement from Mills, in which he stated that he had no knowledge of how L.M. had sustained head injuries and that he was not sure if L.M. actually had some of the injuries. Further, in the PSI statement, Mills denied being abusive to his son, maintained his innocence, and stated that he had been unfairly treated due to his race. Finally, in his PSI statement, Mills also claimed that DCS and the State of Indiana had murdered his son.

[7] The State, in its argument, drew the trial court's attention to Dr. Hicks’ extensive testimony regarding L.M.’s injuries. In doing so, the State noted that the case, L.M.’s abuse, and L.M.’s neglect were “horrific[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 5). The State, when summarizing the extensive injuries inflicted by Mills to L.M., noted that the nature and circumstances of the crime was an aggravating circumstance. The State also asked the trial court to consider Mills’ “attempts to prevent adults” from interfering or helping L.M. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 6). Additionally, the State argued that L.M.’s tender age and Mills’ abuse as a person in a position of trust were aggravators. The State also asked the trial court to find the fact that Mills had violated a pretrial no contact order as an aggravator. Ultimately, the State asked the trial court to sentence Mills to thirty-nine years, all executed, for his Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in catastrophic injury or death conviction.

[8] Mills argued that his lack of a criminal history was a mitigator. Mills also argued that “his education, his work history[,] as well as the Indiana Risk Assessment factors ․ could all be taken as mitigators.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 7-8). Mills testified that, while incarcerated, he had completed the “Thinking for a Change” program and was “[c]urrently ․ working with the special needs acclimation program[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 8). Mills also testified that, after having “a lot of time to sit and think,” he “wish[ed] [that] [he] could [have] do[ne] things totally different[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 9). Mills further testified that he took “full responsibility” and understood that what happened “fell solely on [his] shoulders[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 9). Mills’ counsel noted that Mills had shown remorse for his actions and asked for something less than the previously imposed thirty-nine-year sentence.

[9] When resentencing Mills, the trial court noted, after it had reviewed everything before it, that L.M. had “suffered tremendously.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 14). The trial court found as aggravating circumstances: (1) Mills’ position of trust; (2) Mills’ attempts to conceal the crime; (3) the harm, injury, or damage suffered by the victim was both significant and greater than that necessary to prove the elements of the offense; and (4) Mills’ minor criminal history, particularly his violation of the pre-conviction release by contacting L.M. through an intermediary. The trial court found as mitigating circumstances: (1) Mills’ lack of criminal history; (2) Mills’ completion of DOC programs; and (3) Mills’ remorse. The trial court stated that it was “well aware” that it should “reserve maximum sentences for the worst offenders” and noted that “[v]ery few” had committed acts worse than Mills. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 16). The trial court sentenced Mills to thirty-nine (39) years fully executed at the DOC for his Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in catastrophic injury or death conviction.

[10] Mills now appeals.

Decision

[11] Mills argues that his sentence is inappropriate and asks us to revise his sentence to a thirty-year sentence. We may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). The defendant has the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). The principal role of a Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived correct result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on “the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224. “Appellate Rule 7(B) analysis is not to determine whether another sentence is more appropriate but rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), reh'g denied.

[12] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge 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. A person who commits a Level 1 felony “shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between twenty (20) years and forty (40) years, with the advisory sentence being thirty (30) years.” IND. CODE § 35-50-2-4(b). Here, a jury found Mills guilty of Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in catastrophic injury or death. The trial court sentenced Mills to a thirty-nine-year sentence, all of which was to be served at the DOC.

[13] Turning first to the nature of the offense, we agree with the trial court when it noted that “[v]ery few” had committed worse acts than Mills in this case. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 16). Mills brutally and repeatedly punished and abused his child, then four-year-old L.M., over a period of time. Additionally, Mills deprived L.M. of food and water and taunted L.M. with food and water as a punishment. By the time L.M. had been taken to the hospital, he weighed less than thirty pounds, which is about the same as an average two-year-old. Doctors at the hospital determined that L.M.’s injuries included subdural hematomas overlying both hemispheres of his brain, bleeding outside the spinal cord, retinal hemorrhages, heterotopic ossification on his thighs and back, and a healing injury of the left forearm. L.M.’s injuries were so severe that, even after months in the hospital, he never regained the ability to walk, talk, or eat. Further, his neurological function did not improve, and he suffered from seizures and often struggled to breathe on his own. Less than a year after his release, L.M. contracted pneumonia, struggled to breathe, and was placed on a ventilator. L.M., due to his poor quality of life and limited life span, was taken off of the ventilator. Soon after, L.M. died and his cause of death was listed as respiratory failure with traumatic brain injury as an underlying cause. The nature of the offense cannot be described as anything less than horrific, and we are not persuaded by Mills’ arguments minimizing the nature of his offense.

[14] Turning to Mills’ character, we note that “[a] defendant's life and conduct are illustrative of his or her character.” Morris v. State, 114 N.E.3d 531, 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. The PSI revealed that Mills has two prior misdemeanors. Any criminal history reflects poorly on Mills’ character. See Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (explaining that any criminal history reflects poorly on a person's character). Further, Mills violated the terms of his pre-conviction release by contacting L.M. through an intermediary. Although we acknowledge that Mills had completed programs at the DOC and has expressed remorse for his actions years after the offense, we also note that the May 2022 PSI revealed that Mills had maintained his innocence, had denied abusing L.M., and had stated that DCS and the State of Indiana murdered L.M. Additionally, the record reveals multiple instances where DCS attempted to investigate L.M.’s injuries, but Mills impeded any such investigations. This reflects poorly on his character.

[15] Mills has not persuaded this Court that his thirty-nine-year sentence for his Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in catastrophic injury or death conviction is inappropriate. Therefore, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   IND. CODE § 35-46-1-4.

3.   The trial court judge presiding over Mills’ second sentencing hearing was not the same trial court judge that had presided over Mills’ first sentencing hearing.

Pyle, Judge.

Chief Judge Altice and Judge DeBoer concur. Altice, C.J., and DeBoer, J., concur.