HARDING v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Emily Harding appeals the sentence the trial court imposed after: (1) she pleaded guilty to one count of Level 6 felony battery on a public safety official in one case; and (2) she pleaded guilty to one count of Level 6 felony battery on a public safety official and was also found guilty after a bench trial of Level 3 felony robbery resulting in bodily injury, Level 3 felony burglary resulting in bodily injury, Level 6 felony intimidation, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement in the other case.

[2] Harding asks the Court to exercise its authority to review and revise her sentence in one of the cases. She has failed to carry her burden of proving that her sentence should be revised. Consequently, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Michael Lockridge and Harding were longtime acquaintances. Lockridge lived at his mother's house in Shelbyville, and Harding lived at her father's house a few blocks away. Several weeks before the events relevant to this appeal, Lockridge and Lockridge's mother both told Harding to stay away from their house.

[4] In the early morning hours of August 18, 2024, Lockridge was asleep in his bedroom, lying in a recliner next to his bed. His bedroom was on the first floor, and he had left his bedroom window open. Lockridge was awakened by a sudden pain in his knee, and he discovered that Harding had accidentally kicked him as she was climbing over his bed and out of the window.

[5] Harding was partially wearing two of Lockridge's masks, which were autographed collectibles from the movie “Killer Clowns.” Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 46-47. He got up and took the masks off of her. Harding climbed out of the window and, while standing right outside, pulled out a small glass jar that contained a candle. She hit Lockridge in the head with the jar as he leaned out of the window, and then she fled.

[6] As Lockridge recovered from the hit, he noticed that fifteen dollars was missing from a jar near his bed. He called 911, giving the dispatcher Harding's name and a description of her clothing. Lockridge further said that she had entered his house without permission, took his money, and hit him in the head with a jar.

[7] Lockridge had a bump on his forehead due to Harding's attack. He was “wobbly” and “seeing doubles[,]” id. at 57, and he developed a strong headache.

[8] Lieutenant Shawn Bennett of the Shelbyville Police Department was dispatched to Lockridge's house. He spoke with Lockridge and Lockridge's mother. Lieutenant Bennett noted that Lockridge had swelling on his forehead. Lockridge repeated his statement that Harding had stolen $15.00.

[9] Meanwhile, Harding walked to a convenience store several blocks away, where she purchased a drink. Other Shelbyville officers, including Sergeant Curtis Schuman, were dispatched to the area to look for her. He knew that Harding's father lived nearby, so he went to her father's house.

[10] Sergeant Schuman saw Harding approaching the house via an alley. She was wearing clothes that matched the description the dispatcher had provided. The sergeant and another officer took Harding into custody, but she struggled during and after being handcuffed. She tried to pull away from them and yelled loudly. The officers had to put her on the ground and hold her still for several minutes. During this encounter, Harding told the sergeant, “I will kill you.” Id. at 100. Sergeant Schuman searched Harding and found the jar that she had used to strike Lockridge.

[11] The officers took Harding to jail. Later that day, Harding spat in Sergeant Schuman's face while he and another officer attempted to put her in a restraint chair. In a separate jail incident that same day, Harding also spat in Officer Higgins's face.

[12] A detective interviewed Lockridge at the station. He complained of a headache and had a visible injury on his forehead.

[13] In Cause Number 73D01-2408-F3-4 (“F3-4”), the State charged Harding with Level 3 felony robbery resulting in bodily injury, Level 3 felony burglary resulting in bodily injury, Level 6 felony intimidation, Level 6 felony battery on a public safety official (spitting on Sergeant Schuman), and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. In Cause Number 73D01-2408-F6-222 (“F6-222”), the State charged Harding with Level 6 felony battery on a public safety official (spitting on Officer Higgins).

[14] The State requested and received the trial court's permission to file a habitual offender sentencing enhancement in both cases. Later, the parties agreed that Harding would waive her right to trial by jury in both cases in exchange for the State dismissing the habitual offender enhancement.

[15] Next, in F6-222, the parties filed with the trial court a “Joint Motion to Enter Plea of Guilty and Advisement of Rights and Waiver.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 44. Harding pleaded guilty as charged to the Level 6 felony, pursuant to a plea agreement. The court accepted Harding's guilty plea in F6-222 and delayed sentencing until after the charges in F3-4 were resolved.

[16] At the beginning of the bench trial in F3-4, Harding submitted an open plea of guilty as to the charge of Level 6 felony battery. The trial court accepted her guilty plea and began the bench trial on the remaining charges. At the close of the case, the court determined that Harding was guilty as charged.

[17] During sentencing in F6-222 and F3-4, the trial court identified the following mitigating factors: (1) Harding accepted some responsibility by pleading guilty to two of the charges; and (2) in her youth, she had received a diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder. The sole aggravating factor is Harding's criminal history, which we discuss below.

[18] In F6-222, the trial court imposed a one-year sentence. In F3-4, the court imposed an aggregate sentence of twelve years, with four suspended to probation, to be served consecutive to Harding's sentence in F6-222. The trial court issued one sentencing order for both cases, and Harding filed a Notice of Appeal addressing both cases.

Discussion and Decision

[19] Harding asks the Court to reduce her twelve-year sentence in F3-4 by an unspecified amount.¹ Article 7, section 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorizes the Court to review and revise sentences. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) implements this authority, stating that the Court may revise a sentence “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.”

[20] When reviewing a sentence under Appellate Rule 7(b), we generally defer to the sentence imposed by the trial court. Skeens v. State, 191 N.E.3d 916, 923 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). The principal role of our review is to leaven the outliers, not to achieve a perceived correct sentence in each case. Anderson v. State, 251 N.E.3d 1066, 1088 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), trans. denied. As a result, when conducting our review we do not ask “ ‘whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.’ ” Helsley v. State, 43 N.E.3d 225, 228 (Ind. 2015) (quoting King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)). A grant of relief under Rule 7(B) is reserved “for exceptional cases.” Livingston v. State, 113 N.E.3d 611, 613 (Ind. 2018) (per curiam).

[21] When reviewing a sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B), we “may include consideration of the totality of the penal consequences found in a trial court's sentence[,]” including whether the trial court ordered a portion of the sentence to be suspended. Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1024 (Ind. 2010). “We may look at any factors appearing in the record when assessing the nature of the offense and character of the offender.” Zamilpa v. State, 229 N.E.3d 1079, 1088 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). “The defendant bears the burden of persuading us a revised sentence is warranted.” Anderson, 251 N.E.3d at 1089.

[22] “[T]he advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Dean v. State, 222 N.E.3d 976, 990 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied. At the time Harding committed her offenses in F3-4, the advisory sentence for a Level 3 felony was nine years, with a maximum of sixteen years and a minimum of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5(b) (2014). The advisory sentence for a Level 6 felony was one year, with a maximum sentence of two and a half years and a minimum sentence of six months. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b) (2019). And the maximum sentence for a Class A misdemeanor was one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2 (1977).

[23] The trial court sentenced Harding to twelve years, with four years suspended to probation, for each of the Level 3 felonies. The court also sentenced Harding to two years for each of the Level 6 felonies. And the court imposed a one-year sentence for the Class A misdemeanor. The court ordered Harding to serve these sentences concurrently, for a total sentence of twelve years, with four years suspended to probation. Harding's executed eight-year term is well short of the maximum possible executed sentence that the court could have imposed.

[24] “Our analysis of the ‘nature of the offense’ requires us to look at the extent, brutality, and heinousness of the offense.” Borroel v. State, 241 N.E.3d 8, 18 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), trans. denied. Harding argues that she did not demonstrate the “evil intent” that is often involved in home invasions. Appellant's Br. p. 11. Instead, she argues that her criminal misconduct was “impulsive” and resulted from her longtime addiction to controlled substances. Id. at 10. Regardless of whether Harding acted spontaneously, she chose to enter Lockridge's home without permission and take his property. In addition, she is fortunate that striking Lockridge on the head with a glass jar did not result in a more serious injury. Further, Harding was already outside Lockridge's house when she attacked him. She could have simply fled, but she gratuitously struck him.

[25] By the time Harding encountered Sergeant Schuman at her father's house, she had time to reconsider her course of conduct. But she vehemently resisted the sergeant and other officers both during and after being handcuffed, requiring several officers to restrain her on the ground. Rather than cease her misconduct, she threatened Sergeant Schuman's life. Finally, even after being incarcerated, she spat upon officers in two separate incidents. Harding's commitment to a course of violent and threatening conduct reflects a refusal to comply with the law.

[26] Turning to the character of the offender, our analysis “involves a broad consideration of a defendant's qualities, including the defendant's age, criminal history, background, past rehabilitative efforts, and remorse.” Borroel, 241 N.E.3d at 18. Harding was twenty-five years old at sentencing, and she has an extensive criminal history. She was adjudicated a delinquent child in eleven cases for acts that, if committed by an adult, would include repeated instances of battery on a public safety official and resisting law enforcement. Other acts included residential entry and possession of controlled substances and alcohol. Harding was committed to the Indiana Department of Correction for several juvenile cases.

[27] As an adult, Harding has accrued six prior felony convictions, including battery on a public safety official, resisting law enforcement, and auto theft. She has accrued five misdemeanor convictions, including resisting law enforcement, domestic battery, and criminal trespass. Harding has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to use violence against police officers and a lack of respect for others’ dwellings and property. In addition, as an adult she was placed on probation in four cases and violated probation in three of those cases.

[28] Harding argues that she has dealt with mental illness since she was very young and self-medicated with controlled substances. There is no dispute that she was diagnosed with a conduct disorder and used controlled substances and alcohol throughout her teen years and adulthood. But she has also been given opportunities to seek mental health treatment and has not availed herself of them or made permanent changes. See Pedigo v. State, 146 N.E.3d 1002, 1016 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (sentence not inappropriate in light of defendant's character; defendant had used controlled substances since childhood but had failed to utilize past opportunities to address addiction issues), trans. denied.

[29] Harding also claims that during her period of incarceration while F3-4 and F6-222 were pending, she achieved sobriety and gained insight into her misconduct. Although Harding testified to that effect during sentencing, the State submitted testimony from a jail employee demonstrating that Harding continued to get into conflicts with other inmates, including physical fights, while F3-4 was pending. The trial court was not obligated to accept Harding's statements at face value. Harding has failed to carry her burden of proving that her sentence in F3-4 is an outlier in need of revision.

Conclusion

[30] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[31] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   After consideration, Harding explicitly declines to challenge her sentence in F6-222, conceding that the parties’ plea agreement and related documents bar this sentencing appeal. Appellant's Br. p. 7.

Najam, Senior Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Felix, J., concur.