GIPSON IV v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Raymond Gipson, IV appeals his three-year sentence, with one year suspended to probation, imposed after he was convicted of Level 5 felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a person under fourteen years old. Gipson argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In September 2023, Gipson's son K.G. was nine years old. On September 7, K.G. rode the bus home from school, but, when he arrived home, K.G. informed his bus driver that the front door was locked. The bus driver communicated with school officials to determine the location of K.G.’s parents and then informed K.G. that Gipson would be home in a few minutes. The bus driver instructed K.G. to sit on the front porch until Gipson arrived home.

[4] Before Gipson arrived home, K.G.’s stepmother picked K.G. up and took him to Walmart. Gipson met K.G. at Walmart and drove him back home. During the drive home, Gipson punched K.G. in the knee and told him not to cry about it. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 121. Gipson told K.G. to go to their backyard when they arrived home. Gipson then told K.G. to punch him. K.G. followed Gipson's instruction, and Gipson then slapped K.G. across the face, which caused K.G.’s glasses to fall off. Gipson slapped K.G.’s face two or three times, and he then picked K.G. up by his underarms and slammed him down to the ground on his back. The back of K.G.’s head hit rocks when he was slammed to the ground.

[5] K.G. suffered a laceration on the back of his head, which was bleeding. This was of particular concern because K.G. had suffered a prior head injury when he was four years old, and, as a result, he had a ventriculoperitoneal shunt implanted in his brain. Gipson took K.G. to the emergency room. Gipson told K.G. to lie about how he was injured so that Gipson would not go to jail. Id. at 125. He told K.G. to tell medical providers that K.G. had tripped and hit his head on the rocks while they were playing basketball. Id.

[6] The State charged Gipson with Level 5 felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a person under fourteen years old. Gipson's jury trial commenced on September 30, 2025. Both K.G. and Gipson testified at trial. K.G.’s testimony was consistent with the statements he had given to DCS case workers and law enforcement officers after he was released from the hospital. Gipson claimed that K.G. had lied during the investigation and had lied to the jury. The jury found Gipson guilty as charged.

[7] During the subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court considered as aggravating circumstances that Gipson had a prior criminal history consisting of several alcohol and drug related misdemeanor offenses and a prior conviction for Class A misdemeanor battery; that the victim “was physically infirm due to a prior injury”; and that Gipson was in a position of care, custody, or control over the victim of the offense. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 155. The trial court also found the following mitigating circumstances: that Gipson is likely to respond affirmatively to probation, that he is unlikely to commit another crime, and that he sought medical treatment for the victim of the offense. Id. at 155-56. The court then ordered Gipson to serve an advisory three-year sentence and suspended one year of that sentence to probation.

[8] Gipson now appeals.

Gipson's advisory sentence is not inappropriate.

[9] Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), we may modify a sentence that we find is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Making this determination “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.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008).

[10] However, sentence modification under Rule 7(B) is reserved for “a rare and exceptional case.” Livingston v. State, 113 N.E.3d 611, 612 (Ind. 2018) (per curiam). Thus, when conducting this review, we will defer to the sentence imposed by the trial court unless the defendant demonstrates compelling evidence that portrays the nature of the offense and his character in a positive light, such as showing a lack of brutality in the offenses or showing substantial virtuous character traits. Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[11] The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one to six years, with the advisory sentence of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6. The trial court ordered Gipson to serve the three-year advisory sentence but also suspended one year of that sentence to probation.

[12] Gipson claims that the nature of his offense warrants a downward revision of his sentence because the trial court gave some mitigating weight to his proposed mitigating circumstance that he did not contemplate that his crime would cause harm to K.G. Br. of Appellant at 11; Tr. Vol. 3, p. 5. The trial court made this finding in the context of discussing Gipson's defense that he was innocent and that the injury occurred when K.G. fell while playing basketball. Tr. Vol. 3, pp. 5-6. Specifically, the court said:

So, I'm struggling to find that as a mitigating circumstance because there's been a complete denial as to any improper touching, any battery at all by Mr. Gipson, so in terms of seeing it in the way it was presented of Mr. Gipson is maintaining his innocence, therefore he did not contemplate any harm, I will find it and provide it some weight, but I'm just explaining that I'm struggling with that one a little bit simply because the evidence was that Mr. Gipson – that he presented, was that he did no improper touching, no battery at all. Therefore, I struggle to see how he could do anything that would not contemplate harm.

Id. Gipson also observes that he took K.G. to the emergency room and did not seek to conceal K.G.’s injury by delaying medical care.

[13] Gipson battered his nine-year-old son, who had previously sustained a serious head injury. After hitting his child two or three times, Gipson picked K.G. up and slammed him to the ground, causing another head injury. Gipson also told K.G. to lie to medical personnel about the cause of his injury. The trial court appropriately balanced the nature of Gipson's offense and his subsequent actions when it imposed the advisory sentence. For this reason, Gipson has not convinced us that the nature of his offense supports a downward revision of his sentence.

[14] Gipson also claims that his character supports a downward revision of his sentence because his criminal history consists of insignificant misdemeanor alcohol-related offenses and he had “undertaken substantial efforts to improve himself, which demonstrated a genuine commitment to change.” Appellant's Br. at 12. Gipson cites to his completion of anger management classes, substance abuse treatment, and other services with the goal of improving his ability to parent K.G. Id.

[15] The trial court adequately considered Gipson's efforts to improve himself when it imposed the advisory sentence and suspended one year of that sentence to probation. While we consider those efforts, we also observe that Gipson's character is reflected in the fact that he battered his nine-year-old son and instructed him to lie about the cause of his injury. At the sentencing hearing, Gipson continued to claim that his son lied during trial. And the trial court found that Gipson showed no remorse for his offense. Finally, while we agree that Gipson's criminal history is relatively minor, Gipson has a prior misdemeanor battery conviction and two operating a vehicle while intoxicated convictions. For all of these reasons, Gipson has not convinced us that his character supports a downward revision of his sentence.

[16] Gipson has not met his burden of persuading us that his three-year advisory sentence, with one year suspended to probation, is inappropriate in light of his offense and his character.

[17] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

May, J., and Felix, J., concur.