Camica S. Gibbs, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After Camica Gibbs pled guilty to Level 5 felony domestic battery with bodily injury to a person under fourteen years of age, the trial court sentenced her to a term of three years, with one year executed in the Department of Correction (“DOC”) and two years suspended to probation. Gibbs contends on appeal that her sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 10, 2023, Gibbs and her then-twelve-year-old daughter, J.F., got into an argument because Gibbs did not like the way J.F.’s hair looked. Officers were dispatched to Gibbs's home in response to a domestic disturbance after Gibbs's then-husband called 911. When law enforcement arrived, Gibbs refused to let the officers into the home to complete a welfare check on J.F., exhibiting hostile and uncooperative behavior towards law enforcement and her then-husband.

[3] Gibbs's then-husband, who was allowing Gibbs to live in the home pending the outcome of his and Gibbs's divorce, permitted the officers to enter the home, where they spoke with both Gibbs and J.F. J.F. reported that Gibbs had “yelled at her because of the way her hair looked” before pulling on her shirt and punching her in the stomach. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 29. J.F. further reported that Gibbs had then thrown her “to the ground by pulling on her shirt.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 29. J.F. claimed to have experienced pain as a result of Gibbs's actions, noting that her pain “was a seven out of ten.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 29.

[4] On December 13, 2023, the State charged Gibbs with Level 5 felony domestic battery with bodily injury to a person under fourteen years of age. Gibbs pled guilty to this charge on February 3, 2025. The trial court subsequently sentenced Gibbs to a three-year term, with one year executed in the DOC and two years suspended to probation.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Gibbs contends that her three-year sentence is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “[t]he 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.” In analyzing such claims, we “concentrate less on comparing the facts of [the case at issue] to others, whether real or hypothetical, and more on focusing on the nature, extent, and depravity of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced, and what it reveals about the defendant's character.” Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (internal quotation omitted), trans. denied. The defendant bears the burden of persuading us that her sentence is inappropriate. Sanchez v. State, 891 N.E.2d 174, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[6] “A person who commits a Level 5 felony ․ shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between one (1) and six (6) years, with the advisory sentence being three (3) years.” Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b). We have said that an appellate court is “unlikely to consider an advisory sentence inappropriate[,]” Shelby v. State, 986 N.E.2d 345, 371 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied, and that a “defendant bears a particularly heavy burden in persuading us that [her] sentence is inappropriate when the trial court imposes the advisory sentence.” Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.

[7] Gibbs does not challenge the length of her sentence. Instead, she argues that her sentence is inappropriate because the trial court should have suspended her entire sentence rather than ordering the first of three years to be executed in the DOC. “The place where a sentence is to be served is subject to review under Rule 7(B).” Moon v. State, 110 N.E.3d 1156, 1162 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “However, this court has recognized that it is quite difficult for [an appellant] to prevail on a claim that his placement is inappropriate.” Id. (bracketed material added, internal quotation omitted). “Moreover, because our appellate review is focused not on whether another sentence might be more appropriate, but on whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate, a defendant challenging the placement of a sentence must convince us that the given placement is itself inappropriate.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).

[8] The nature of Gibbs's offense is that she battered her then-twelve-year-old daughter, causing J.F. to experience pain because she did not like how J.F.’s hair looked. J.F. reported that Gibbs had “yelled at her because of the way her hair looked” before pulling on her shirt and punching her in the stomach. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 29. J.F. further reported that Gibbs had then thrown her “to the ground by pulling on her shirt.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 29. J.F. claimed to have experienced pain as a result of Gibbs's actions, noting that her pain “was a seven out of ten.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 29. The nature of Gibbs's offense is serious, as she escalated a seemingly minor dispute with her pre-teen daughter over her daughter's hairstyle into an act of Level 5 felony battery. See generally, Warr v. State, 877 N.E.2d 817, 826 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (upholding Warr's two-year sentence, noting that as it related to her crime, Warr had escalated a dispute over brushing teeth into a felony), trans. denied.

[9] As for Gibbs's character, it reflects poorly on it that Gibbs escalated a seemingly minor disagreement with her daughter into a physical altercation. In addition, following her arrest for her acts involving her daughter, Gibbs displayed a disregard for the trial court and laws of this State by repeatedly violating a no-contact order that prohibited her from communicating with her daughter and an order for protection that prohibited her from communicating with her then-husband. The violations of the order for protection resulted in a conviction for invasion of privacy. While this conviction is Gibbs's only other criminal conviction, even a minor criminal record reflects poorly on her character. See Prince v. State, 148 N.E.3d 1171, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (“Even a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendant's character.”). Furthermore, while Gibbs suffers from schizophrenia, mental illness does not necessarily diminish the gravity of her conduct, especially where, as here, she has not established a nexus between her mental illness and her conduct. See Helsley v. State, 43 N.E.3d 225, 229 (Ind. 2015) (finding that the defendant's claimed mental illness did not diminish his criminal culpability for committing multiple murders); Steinberg v. State, 941 N.E.2d 515, 534 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (noting that in order for a defendant's mental illness to provide a basis for establishing a mitigating factor, there must be a nexus between the defendant's mental health and the crime in question), trans. denied.

[10] Again, Gibbs challenges the trial court's order that she serve one year of her three-year sentence in the DOC. Gibbs has failed to convince us that the one-year placement in the DOC is inappropriate. See Moon, 110 N.E.3d at 1162 (providing that a defendant challenging the placement of a sentence must convince us that the given placement is inappropriate). Given that Gibbs does not challenge the length of her sentence, rather only her placement in DOC, Gibbs has failed to carry her burden of convincing us that her three-year sentence is inappropriate. See Sanchez, 891 N.E.2d at 176.

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

Bradford, Judge.

Judges Weissmann and DeBoer concur. Weissmann, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.