James E. Phillips, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] James E. Phillips was convicted of Level 1 felony attempted murder and Level 4 felony possession of a deadly weapon by a prisoner and was found to be a habitual offender. The trial court imposed a total sentence of 60 years. Phillips now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence and, alternatively, that his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On October 6, 2023, Phillips, who was at Pendleton Correctional Facility serving a lengthy sentence for a 2010 murder conviction, attacked Correctional Officer Jacobi Jessie with a prison-made knife. Phillips repeatedly punched and stabbed Officer Jessie in the head, face, and neck for more than 30 seconds. Correctional Officer Adam Williams eventually arrived and pulled Phillips off of Officer Jessie, injuring his own shoulder in the process. Officer Jessie escaped serious injury, but he suffered a puncture wound near his throat and several lacerations. The attack was captured on surveillance video. Investigators later discovered that Phillips, in the days before the incident, made phone calls indicating that he wanted to be moved from general population to segregation and that he was planning an attack to accomplish that goal. See Exs. 43-45.

[3] The State charged Phillips with Level 1 felony attempted murder, Level 4 felony possession of a deadly weapon by a prisoner, and Level 5 felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a public safety official based on the injury to Officer Williams. The State also alleged that Phillips is a habitual offender based on prior felony convictions.

[4] At trial, the State presented the evidence described above. It also presented, over Phillips's objection, evidence that Phillips had previously been in segregation. Phillips testified in his own defense. He admitted attacking Officer Jessie, but he denied having a knife, even though it is visible in the video. He also acknowledged that his actions were “uncalled for” but claimed that he didn't intend to kill Officer Jessie. Tr. Vol. 2 p. 70. He said he attacked Officer Jessie because he returned from recreation time to find that his cell was covered in feces and he believed prison staff was responsible. Phillips was uncooperative during cross-examination, and the court found him in contempt three times before ultimately having him removed from the courtroom.

[5] The jury found Phillips guilty of attempted murder and possession of a deadly weapon but not guilty on the battery count relating to Officer Williams. The jury also found that Phillips is a habitual offender. In sentencing Phillips, the trial court found his criminal history to be an aggravating circumstance and found no mitigating circumstances. The court sentenced Phillips to 60 years for attempted murder (40 years plus a habitual-offender enhancement of 20 years) and a concurrent term of 12 years for possession of a deadly weapon.

[6] Phillips now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Any error in the admission of evidence was harmless

[7] Phillips contends that the trial court erred by admitting evidence that he had previously been in segregation. He argues that this evidence wasn't relevant for any purpose other than to suggest to the jury that he is a person of poor or violent character with a propensity to commit crimes, in violation of Evidence Rule 404(b). The State doesn't offer much of a response, but we need not decide whether the trial court erred. Even if it did, the error was harmless.

[8] Indiana Appellate Rule 66(A) provides:

No error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the trial court or by any of the parties is ground for granting relief or reversal on appeal where its probable impact, in light of all the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties.

As our Supreme Court has explained:

When an appellate court must determine whether a non-constitutional error is harmless, Rule 66(A)’s “probable impact test” controls. Under this test, the party seeking relief bears the burden of demonstrating how, in light of all the evidence in the case, the error's probable impact undermines confidence in the outcome of the proceeding below. Importantly, this is not a review for the sufficiency of the remaining evidence; it is a review of what was presented to the trier of fact compared to what should have been presented. And when conducting that review, we consider the likely impact of the improperly admitted or excluded evidence on a reasonable, average jury in light of all the evidence in the case. Ultimately, the error's probable impact is sufficiently minor when—considering the entire record—our confidence in the outcome is not undermined.

Hayko v. State, 211 N.E.3d 483, 492 (Ind. 2023) (citations omitted), reh'g denied.

[9] Phillips hasn't carried this burden. First, the jury already knew that he was in prison for something, since that is where the attack occurred. Second, the jury was not told why he had previously been in segregation. That is, the jury was not told whether Phillips was in segregation due to misconduct or for some other reason, such as safekeeping. Third, and most importantly, the other evidence against Phillips was overwhelming. The attack was captured on surveillance video, and the video clearly depicts Phillips repeatedly striking Officer Jessie with a knife. Officer Jessie suffered multiple injuries as a result, including a puncture wound near his throat. And in multiple phone calls leading up to the incident, Phillips stated that he was planning an attack that would get him moved from general population to segregation. Phillips has given us no reason to believe that the jury might have reached a different verdict if it hadn't been told that he was previously in segregation. We therefore affirm his convictions and habitual-offender adjudication.

II. Phillips has not shown that his sentence is inappropriate

[10] Alternatively, Phillips asks us to reduce his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that an appellate 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.” The court's role under Rule 7(B) is to “leaven the outliers,” and “we reserve our 7(B) authority for exceptional cases.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 160 (Ind. 2019). “Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.” Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008)). Because we generally defer to the judgment of trial courts in sentencing matters, defendants must persuade us that their sentences are inappropriate. Schaaf v. State, 54 N.E.3d 1041, 1044-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

[11] Phillips's argument fails from the outset because it is based entirely on the mistaken premise that he received “the maximum allowable sentence.” Appellant's Br. pp. 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14. He was convicted of a Level 1 felony and a Level 4 felony and was found to be a habitual offender. The sentencing range for a Level 1 felony is 20 to 40 years, with an advisory sentence of 30 years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4(b). The sentencing range for a Level 4 felony is 2 to 12 years, with an advisory sentence of 6 years. I.C. § 35-50-2-5.5. And the sentencing range for a habitual-offender enhancement for a person convicted of a Level 1 through Level 4 felony is 8 to 20 years. I.C. § 35-50-2-8(i). Therefore, Phillips faced up to 72 years in prison. The trial court imposed the maximum sentence for each component—40 years for the Level 1 felony, enhanced by 20 years for the habitual-offender adjudication, and 12 years for the Level 4 felony—but it ordered the sentence for the Level 4 felony to run concurrently with the sentence for the Level 1 felony, for a total sentence of 60 years. In short, Phillips's sentence is 12 years—about 17%—below the maximum.

[12] To the extent Phillips would argue that his below-maximum sentence is inappropriate, we disagree. Regarding the nature of his offenses, Phillips notes that he didn't seriously injure or permanently disfigure Officer Jessie. But that wasn't for lack of trying. Phillips stabbed and slashed Officer Jessie's head, neck, and face multiple times, leaving a puncture wound near his throat and several lacerations. And the attack ended only because Officer Williams stopped it, injuring his shoulder as a result. Phillips argues that the attack “was not unprovoked” because he allegedly found his cell “covered in feces” and believed prison staff was responsible. Appellant's Br. p. 13. But his claim of provocation is belied by the evidence that he was planning an attack for days.

[13] As for his character, Phillips argues that he has shown remorse, he “suffered from mental health issues including schizophrenia,” he “was not medicated for those diagnoses,” he “grew up never knowing his father,” he “left home at a young age,” and he participated in substance-abuse treatment and earned his GED while incarcerated. Id. at 13-14. Even if all this is true, it is outweighed by his criminal history, which he doesn't address but which includes the 2010 murder conviction and multiple other felony convictions. He was also found in contempt three times during trial and had to be removed from the courtroom.

[14] Phillips's sentence is not inappropriate.

[15] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and May, J., concur.