Charles McDaniel, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Charles McDaniel appeals his sentence of one year in jail, with 275 days to serve and 90 days suspended to probation, for Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] McDaniel and D.H. were married for 19 years before divorcing in 2019. They had five children together, including P.M. P.M. was born in 2008, but due to a cognitive delay she has the mental capabilities of a young child. In December 2022, D.H. sought and received a two-year protective order for P.M. against McDaniel. The order was served on McDaniel while he was at work. Given P.M.’s cognitive delay, she didn't understand the significance of the protective order. In 2023, with the protective order still in effect, McDaniel consented to P.M. and his other children being adopted by D.H.’s new husband.

[3] On August 13, 2024, while D.H. was at work, McDaniel picked up P.M. and one of her brothers and took them to his house. When D.H. returned home, she texted with P.M. and spoke on the phone with the brother. They didn't say they were with McDaniel, but D.H. suspected they were, so she called police. Shortly thereafter, McDaniel brought the children back to D.H.’s home.

[4] The State charged McDaniel with Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy for violating the protective order. At the initial hearing in September 2024, he was released on his own recognizance. He was ordered not to leave the state without the permission of the court or the pretrial services office. A jury trial was scheduled for April 10, 2025, with a jury-verification hearing to be held on April 2. On March 31, McDaniel's attorney moved to continue the jury trial, stating that McDaniel's grandfather had recently died in Florida, that McDaniel intended to travel to Florida for the funeral and to take care of his grandfather's property, and that McDaniel wouldn't be returning to Indiana until April 25. On April 1, the pretrial services office notified the court that McDaniel hadn't reported since February 20 and hadn't responded to its phone calls, mail, or email. McDaniel failed to appear for the hearing on April 2, and his attorney told the court that he was in Florida. The court denied the continuance, confirmed the trial date of April 10, and issued a warrant for McDaniel's arrest. McDaniel failed to appear for trial, and it was held in his absence. The jury found McDaniel guilty as charged.

[5] The next month, McDaniel was picked up on the arrest warrant, and his sentencing hearing was held. The trial court found two aggravating circumstances: the nature of the offense and McDaniel's failure to appear for trial. The court found McDaniel's lack of criminal history to be a mitigating circumstance. Finding the aggravators to outweigh the mitigator, the court sentenced McDaniel to one year in jail, with 275 days to serve and 90 days suspended to probation.

[6] McDaniel now appeals his sentence.

Discussion and Decision

[7] McDaniel asks us to reduce his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that an appellate 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 court's role under Rule 7(B) is to “leaven the outliers,” and “we reserve our 7(B) authority for exceptional cases.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 160 (Ind. 2019). “Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.” Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008)). Because we generally defer to the judgment of trial courts in sentencing matters, defendants must persuade us that their sentences are inappropriate. Schaaf v. State, 54 N.E.3d 1041, 1044-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

[8] The maximum sentence for a Class A misdemeanor is one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2. The trial court sentenced McDaniel to one year in jail but suspended 90 days, leaving 275 days to serve.

[9] As to the nature of the offense, McDaniel notes that he didn't physically harm P.M. while she was with him. He also claims that he thought the protective order was no longer in effect, but he doesn't explain why. And he says he was with P.M. for a “limited amount of time,” Appellant's Br. p. 12, but he doesn't specify the amount of time or cite any evidence on this point. McDaniel doesn't mention that his parental rights had been terminated or that P.M. had a cognitive delay that prevented her from understanding the protective order.

[10] As to his character, McDaniel emphasizes that this is his first criminal conviction. But his actions while this case was pending demonstrate a lack of respect for legal authority. He twice violated the conditions of his release, first by failing to report to pretrial services and then by leaving the state without permission. He also failed to appear for trial and had to be arrested on a warrant before being sentenced.¹

[11] While McDaniel's sentence is on the high end for a first-time offender, he hasn't carried his burden of showing it is inappropriate.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In addition to arguing that his sentence is inappropriate, McDaniel contends that the trial court abused its discretion by finding his failure to appear for trial to be an aggravating circumstance. Our Supreme Court has held this to be a proper aggravator. See Merlington v. State, 814 N.E.2d 269, 273 (Ind. 2004) (holding that the defendant's failure to appear for the last day of his trial was a “valid aggravating circumstance”); see also Thorpe v. State, 524 N.E.2d 795 (Ind. 1988) (holding that “the trial court was not precluded from considering appellant's general attitude evidenced by his absenting himself from the court's jurisdiction”). We also note that McDaniel combines his inappropriateness argument and his abuse-of-discretion argument. Inappropriateness review and abuse-of-discretion review are separate. See King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

Vaidik, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.