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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Jonathan E. Carter (“Carter”) appeals his sentence for Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.¹ Carter argues that his sentence is inappropriate. Concluding that Carter has failed to show that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether Carter's sentence is inappropriate.

Facts

[3] In August of 2025, Carter, who has a previous felony conviction for battery on a public safety officer and who is prohibited from possessing a firearm, was living at his mother's (“Carter's mother”) house. At that time, Carter's mother had expressed that she feared Carter and could not stay at her own house because of that fear. Instead, she was staying with her granddaughter, who was Carter's niece (“Carter's niece”).

[4] On August 27, 2025, Carter's mother's Ring video camera recorded Carter while he was standing on the back porch and holding a shotgun. In the video, Carter also walked to the back edge of the porch, talked into the camera about deputies with whom he had prior involvements, and broke the Ring camera with the barrel of the shotgun. That same day, Carter got into a dispute with and yelled at his neighbor (“Carter's neighbor”), who then called the police because he had felt “unsafe[.]” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 11).

[5] Law enforcement officers responded to the scene and spoke to Carter. During their investigation, the officers received the Ring camera video footage from Carter's niece. Thereafter, the officers obtained a search warrant for Carter's mother's house. During the search, the officers found two guns, including the shotgun that Carter had been seen holding in the Ring camera footage, and a 12-gauge shotgun with a painted barrel and receiver. The officers noted that the shotgun barrel that was seen in the Ring camera footage had shards of glass on it, and the Ring camera had a “perfect circle on the indention on the camera of a shotgun barrel.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 81). Additionally, the officers found a muzzle loader, barrels, and “an assortment of different calibers of ammunition.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 59). Among this ammunition, there were two shotgun shells that had names written on them. Specifically, one shell contained the name “Mary Cunt Maulden[,]” referring to Carter's mother, and the other shell contained the name “Kendra,” which is the name of Carter's ex-wife. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 61).

[6] The State charged Carter with Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and Level 6 felony intimidation.² The trial court held a two-day jury trial in February 2026. During the trial, the State presented evidence regarding the facts as set forth above. Moreover, the State presented testimony from witnesses that Carter's niece had been afraid for the safety of Carter's mother when around Carter and that Carter's mother had been afraid of retaliation by Carter. Carter refused to have appointed counsel and represented himself at trial. Additionally, during the trial, Carter argued that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over him and that statutes were not law and did not apply to him. Carter cross-examined witnesses and testified on his own behalf. The jury found Carter guilty of Level 4 felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

[7] At the time of Carter's sentencing hearing, Carter was forty-eight years old, and he continued to represent himself. During the sentencing hearing, the trial court heard testimony from Carter's family about Carter's character, which included information about his past abusive conduct and threats towards them. Moreover, the trial court reviewed Carter's presentence investigation report (“PSI”), which revealed that Carter has multiple convictions, including Level 5 felony battery with bodily injury to a public safety officer, Level 6 felony intimidation, Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct, Class C misdemeanor refusal to identify, Class A misdemeanor intimidation, and Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated.

[8] When sentencing Carter, the trial court found his previous criminal history to be an aggravating circumstance and specifically noted that it was “troubling.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 202). The trial court found no mitigating circumstances. Additionally, the trial court stated that some of the witnesses had expressed that they were “afraid of Mr. Carter[ ] [and] afraid of retaliation.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 202). Moreover, the trial court highlighted that “at the conclusion of the trial, at least two jurors [had] expressed fear of Mr. Carter[ ] [and] fear of retaliation.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 202). Furthermore, the trial court noted that Carter had made “sovereign citizen” arguments at trial and had argued that “the law d[id] not apply to him.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 203). The trial court further noted that Carter “ha[d] shown complete disrespect to the Court, to the State, [and] to the process.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 203).

[9] Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Carter to ten (10) years executed at the Department of Correction (“DOC”). The trial court noted that it would be open to a possible modification of his sentence in the future.

[10] Carter now appeals.

Decision

[11] Carter argues that his ten (10) year sentence is inappropriate. We disagree.

[12] We may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). The defendant has the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). The principal role of a Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate turns on 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. “Appellate Rule 7(B) analysis is not to determine whether another sentence is more appropriate but rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012) (cleaned up), reh'g denied. Sentence modification under Rule 7(B) is reserved for a “rare and exceptional case.” Skeens v. State, 191 N.E.3d 916, 923 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (cleaned up).

[13] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge that the advisory sentence “is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. Here, a jury found Carter guilty of Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The sentencing range for a Level 4 felony is between two (2) and twelve (12) years, with the advisory sentence being six (6) years. I.C. § 35-50-2-5.5. The trial court imposed a sentence of ten (10) years, which is less than the maximum sentence.

[14] We first turn to the nature of Carter's offense. Carter, who was prohibited from possessing a firearm due to his prior felony conviction, disregarded this prohibition. Specifically, Carter possessed a shotgun, carried and walked around with that shotgun outside of his home, and used it to break a Ring camera.

[15] In reviewing Carter's character, we note that “[a] defendant's life and conduct are illustrative of his or her character.” Morris v. State, 114 N.E.3d 531, 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. The PSI revealed that Carter's criminal history includes two felony convictions and four misdemeanor convictions. Concerningly, these convictions include battery on a public safety officer, as well as intimidation on two separate occasions. Such criminal history reflects poorly on Carter's character. See Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (explaining that any criminal history reflects poorly on a person's character). We further note that Carter has a history of threatening his family, and Carter wrote the names of his mother and ex-wife on two of his shotgun shells. Additionally, the trial court noted that, after the completion of the trial, at least two jurors had expressed fear of retaliation.

[16] After a full review of the record on appeal, we conclude that Carter has not persuaded us that his ten-year sentence for his Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon conviction is inappropriate. Therefore, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.³

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5.

2.   The State later dropped the Level 6 felony intimidation charge.

3.   Carter is represented by appellate counsel, and counsel argued that he felt “compelled” to reassert Carter's trial argument that the trial court lacks jurisdiction over him. (Carter's Br. 10). Carter makes no cogent argument and does not provide any relevant caselaw regarding a lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, we conclude that he has waived this argument. See Ind. App. Rule 46(A)(8)(a). See also Griffith v. State, 59 N.E.3d 947, 958 n.5 (Ind. 2016) (noting that the defendant had waived his arguments by failing to provide cogent argument and relevant case law); Mullis v. State, 256 N.E.3d 567, 586 n.12 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied.

Pyle, Judge.

[18] May, J., and Scheele, J., concur.