Christian Reyes Maldonado, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Christian Reyes Maldonado appeals his sentence following his conviction for voluntary manslaughter, as a Level 2 felony, and a finding that he had used a firearm in the commission of the offense. Maldonado raises one issue for our review, namely, whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On March 24, 2024, Luis Ramirez was standing at an intersection while placing his son in a car seat. At the same time, Maldonado was walking toward the intersection. Maldonado and Ramirez “approached each other” and “an argument ensued[.]” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 21. Maldonado then shot Ramirez in the face and “immediately fled on foot.” Id.

[3] Following the offense, the State charged Maldonado with murder; dealing in cocaine, as a Level 2 felony; unlawful carrying of a handgun, as a Level 5 felony; and unlawful carrying of a handgun, as a Class A misdemeanor. Thereafter, Maldonado and the State entered into a plea agreement pursuant to which Maldonado agreed to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter, as a Level 2 felony, and he agreed that he had used a firearm in the commission of the offense. The court held a hearing on Maldonado's guilty plea on September 5, 2025, and took the matter under advisement.

[4] On October 23, the correctional facility where Maldonado had been placed informed the court that Maldonado was “not appropriate” for community corrections because he had been involved in fights and had had “multiple rule violations.” Id. at 62 (emphasis removed). The next day, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. During the hearing, the court accepted Maldonado's plea.

[5] At the conclusion of the hearing, the court identified as mitigating the fact that Maldonado had pleaded guilty and that he has “significant anger issues[.]” Id. at 64-65. The court then identified as aggravating Maldonado's criminal history; that he had recently violated the conditions of his probation; that the crime was “gruesome in the execution, heinous overall, and shocks the conscious [sic] of any reasonable person”; that he has “significant anger issues”; and that he was “fighting in jail and has a lack of remorse.” Id. at 65. The court found that the aggravators outweighed the mitigators and sentenced Maldonado to thirty years on the voluntary manslaughter conviction plus twenty years for the firearm enhancement. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Maldonado contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. 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.” This Court has recently held that “[t]he advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). And the Indiana Supreme Court has recently explained that:

The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to leaven the outliers ․ but not achieve a perceived “correct” result in each case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Defendant has the burden to persuade us that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind.), as amended (July 10, 2007), decision clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).

Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original).

[7] Indiana's flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court's judgment “should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate at the end of the day turns on “our sense of 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. The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant's character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[8] The sentencing range for a Level 2 felony conviction is ten years to thirty years, with an advisory sentence of seventeen and one-half years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5. And Maldonado faced a possible additional fixed term of five to twenty years for using a firearm in the commission of the offense. I.C. § 35-50-2-11(g). Following a sentencing hearing, the court sentenced Maldonado to the maximum possible term on each, for an aggregate sentence of fifty years.

[9] On appeal, Maldonado contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense because he acted “under sudden heat” and because he “was unable to fully contemplate the fact that [Ramirez's] family was in the vicinity.” Appellant's Br. at 8-9. He also asserts that he demonstrated “restraint” because he “fired only a single shot before leaving the scene[.]” Id. at 6. And he maintains that his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character because he only has one prior felony conviction and is not the worst of the worst to justify a maximum sentence.

[10] However, Maldonado has not met his burden on appeal to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate. With respect to the nature of the offense, Maldonado shot Ramirez in the face while Ramirez's young son was nearby after the two got into a fight. Maldonado then fled the scene instead of attempting to seek any sort of help for Ramirez. Contrary to Maldonado's assertion, we do not agree that shooting someone in the face during an argument shows any sort of restraint. He has not presented compelling evidence portraying the nature of the offenses in a positive light. See Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122.

[11] As for his character, Maldonado's contacts with the justice system began when he was a juvenile at only twelve years of age. He has four adjudications as a juvenile delinquent and one prior felony conviction as an adult. Further, he has previously violated the terms of his probation. And he engaged in fights and had several rule violations while in custody prior to his sentencing hearing for the instant offense. Maldonado has not presented compelling evidence of substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character.” Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122.

Conclusion

[12] Maldonado has not demonstrated that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. We therefore affirm his sentence.

[13] Affirmed.

Bailey, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Scheele, J., concur.