Jonathan P. Ireland, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Jonathan Ireland appeals his sentence for domestic battery, a Level 5 felony. Ireland argues that his five-and-one-half-year sentence is inappropriate. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.

Issue

[2] Ireland raises one issue, which we restate as whether his sentence for domestic battery is inappropriate.

Facts

[3] Ireland was married to K.I., and the couple had six children. Ireland and K.I. were separated, and K.I. and the children had been living with K.I.’s sister. On December 5, 2023, K.I. went to the marital residence to talk with Ireland. They, however, argued over a period of several hours, and Ireland struck K.I., choked her, and destroyed her cell phone with a hammer. Eventually, K.I. escaped the residence while Ireland was showering.

[4] The State charged Ireland with: (1) criminal confinement, a Level 3 felony; (2) strangulation, a Level 6 felony; (3) domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor; and (4) domestic battery, a Level 5 felony. The State later filed an amended charging information adding the following counts: (5) intimidation, a Level 6 felony; and (6) interference with the reporting of a crime, a Class A misdemeanor. The State also alleged that Ireland was an habitual offender.

[5] During the February 2025 jury trial, the State moved to dismiss the charges of intimidation and interference with the reporting of a crime, which the trial court granted. The jury found the following: (1) not guilty of criminal confinement; (2) hung jury on strangulation; and (3) guilty of domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor. Ireland then pleaded guilty to domestic battery, a Level 5 felony, and the trial court entered judgment of conviction as a Level 5 felony rather than a Class A misdemeanor. Ireland also pleaded guilty to strangulation, a Level 6 felony, and the State dismissed the habitual offender allegation.

[6] At the sentencing hearing on March 7, 2025, the State presented evidence that, between January 2024 and the date of sentencing, Ireland placed over 350 calls to K.I. despite a no contact order being in effect during a large portion of the time. Ireland also sent text messages to K.I. through the jail's Chirp system. In several of the calls, Ireland attempted to influence K.I.’s testimony. The trial court found Ireland's “substantial history of criminal behavior” as an aggravating factor. Tr. Vol. V p. 81. The trial court noted that “much of that criminal history consist[s] of offenses against the person.” Id. The trial court found the following additional aggravators: (1) Ireland was on probation for domestic battery of K.I. when he committed this offense; and (2) Ireland violated the terms of the no contact order. Despite Ireland's testimony that he had learned to be less emotional, the trial court noted that some of the text messages to K.I. were far from unemotional. The trial court found no mitigating circumstances. Ireland was sentenced to five and one-half years in the Department of Correction (“DOC”) for the domestic battery conviction and one day for the strangulation conviction ¹ to be served concurrently. Ireland now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Ireland contends that his sentence for domestic battery is inappropriate. The Indiana Constitution authorizes independent appellate review and revision of sentences imposed by a trial court. Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 122 (Ind. 2024) (citing Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6). This authority, as implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), enables this Court to “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.” Deference to the trial court's sentence should prevail unless “overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense and the defendant's character.” Oberhansley v. State, 208 N.E.3d 1261, 1267 (Ind. 2023) (internal quotations omitted). A defendant, however, need not show that both the nature of the offense and his or her character warrant revision; however, “to the extent the evidence on one prong militates against relief, a claim based on the other prong must be all the stronger to justify relief.” Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 127 (citing Connor v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)).

[8] Additionally, in determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we are not limited to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances found by the trial court. Oberhansley, 208 N.E.3d at 1271. “Our role is primarily to leaven the outliers and identify guiding principles for sentencers, rather than to achieve the perceived correct result in each case.” Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 122 (internal quotations omitted). “Ultimately, we rely on our collective judgment as to the balance of all the relevant considerations involved, which include 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. (internal quotations omitted).

[9] “In considering the nature of the offense we recognize the advisory sentence is the starting point the Legislature selected as appropriate for the crime committed.” Kelly v. State, 257 N.E.3d 782, 805 (Ind. 2025), cert. denied. In the case at hand, Ireland was convicted of domestic battery, a Level 5 felony. Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-6 provides: “A person who commits a Level 5 felony (for a crime committed after June 30, 2014) shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between one (1) and six (6) years, with the advisory sentence being three (3) years.” Here, the trial court sentenced Ireland to five and one-half years in the DOC.

A. Nature of the Offense

[10] Our analysis of the “nature of the offense” requires us to look at the extent, brutality, and heinousness of the offense. Pritcher v. State, 208 N.E.3d 656, 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (citing Brown v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1, 5 (Ind. 2014)). A trial court's sentencing decision will “generally prevail ‘unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as [being] accompanied by restraint, regard and lack of brutality) ․’ ” Konkle v. State, 253 N.E.3d 1068, 1093 (Ind. 2025) (quoting Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015)).

[11] Ireland argues that K.I. did not suffer significant injuries and that his actions were related to an impending dissolution and “emotions were very much elevated.” Appellant's Br. p. 8. The evidence, however, showed that, over a period of four hours, Ireland argued with K.I., battered her, choked her, and destroyed her cell phone with a hammer. K.I. eventually escaped while Ireland was taking a shower. Ireland has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense.

B. Character of the Offender

[12] Our analysis of the character of the offender involves a broad consideration of a defendant's qualities, including the defendant's age, criminal history, background, past rehabilitative efforts, and remorse. See Harris v. State, 165 N.E.3d 91, 100 (Ind. 2021); McCain v. State, 148 N.E.3d 977, 985 (Ind. 2020). A trial court's sentencing decision will “generally prevail ‘unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light ․ the defendant's character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).’ ” Konkle, 253 N.E.3d at 1093 (quoting Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122). The significance of a criminal history in assessing a defendant's character and an appropriate sentence vary based on the “gravity, nature and number of prior offenses as they relate to the current offense.” McElfresh v. State, 51 N.E.3d 103, 112 (Ind. 2016). “Even a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendant's character.” Prince v. State, 148 N.E.3d 1171, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).

[13] Ireland argues that he expressed remorse, testified that he overreacted and regretted his actions, and had dependents that relied upon him. The fact that Ireland has dependents that rely on him is undermined by Ireland's conduct, including his repeated battery convictions and violations of the no contact order. Although Ireland testified extensively that he overreacted and regretted his actions, he also testified, “I'm just a man who got emotional and overreacted to the situation at hand, and I've done that all my life.” Tr. Vol. V p. 47. When the deputy prosecutor asked Ireland, “[Y]ou struck [K.I.], right?,” Ireland minimized his actions and responded, “We wrestled.” Id. at 50. In text messages to K.I. shortly before the trial, Ireland said, “im glad u find this so funny u heartless sack of shiit Keep ur ‘lmao’ 4 some1 who actually finds this funny fuuck u & ur pos bf I hope CPS finds out what ur up2.” Ex. Vol. I p. 32 (errors in original). The trial court was in the best position to assess Ireland's remorse and changed attitude, and we will not reweigh that determination.

[14] Moreover, Ireland completely ignores the significance of his criminal history. Ireland has a substantial criminal history that began in 2000 and consists of more than a dozen misdemeanor convictions and several felony convictions.² Ireland has at least five prior battery convictions, including a 2023 felony conviction for domestic battery against K.I. Ireland was on probation for that domestic battery conviction at the time of this offense. Furthermore, Ireland repeatedly violated the no contact order issued in this case. Ireland's criminal history is a poor reflection on his character. Ireland has failed to demonstrate that his character warrants a reduction in his sentence.

Conclusion

[15] Ireland's sentence is not inappropriate. Accordingly, we affirm.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The plea agreement provided that Ireland would serve one day for this conviction. Ireland does not appeal his sentence for the strangulation conviction.

2.   We note that, on several referenced charges, the presentence investigation report merely stated: “See CCS Entry for Charge Description” where the charges should have been described, making it difficult for this Court to assess Ireland's entire criminal history and requiring this Court to take judicial notice of Ireland's criminal records found on Odyssey. We encourage an accurate description of criminal charges and dispositions in the PSI. The PSI states that Ireland has fifteen misdemeanor convictions and five prior felony convictions. In its Appellee's Brief, the State contends that Ireland has twelve misdemeanor convictions and four prior felony convictions. By our calculation, Ireland has sixteen misdemeanor convictions and five prior felony convictions. Regardless, the record makes clear that Ireland has a substantial criminal history.

Tavitas, Chief Judge.

Bailey, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.