Victor Benham Jr., Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Victor Benham Jr. appeals his sentence following his conviction for Level 6 felony domestic battery in the presence of a child and his adjudication as a habitual offender. Benham presents one issue for our review, namely, whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On May 8, 2025, the State charged Benham with Level 6 felony strangulation and Level 6 felony domestic battery in the presence of a child. The State also alleged that Benham was a habitual offender. In November, Benham pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony domestic battery in the presence of a child, and he admitted to being a habitual offender. The State dismissed the strangulation charge.

[4] At sentencing, the State introduced the testimony of Ripley County Sheriff's Deputy Grayson Miller. Deputy Miller testified that, on May 7, 2025, he was dispatched to a party in Holton after a report of domestic violence. Deputy Miller spoke with Dana Mathis, who was “bleeding from her left ear ․” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 11. Mathis told him that she and her boyfriend, Benham, were at Benham's uncle's house when, during an “altercation,” Benham “ripped her ․ ear ․” Id. Deputy Miller also observed a “hand print around her neck.” Id. at 12. Deputy Miller then talked to Mathis's five-year-old daughter, who witnessed the attack, and she had seen Benham “with his hand around [Mathis's] neck, up against the wall[,] and ․ he had grabbed [Mathis] by the ear and tried dragging her down the stairs to the basement.” Id. at 17.

[5] In addition, Deputy Miller described Mathis's answers to a questionnaire designed to assess the “lethality” of a domestic violence situation. Id. at 13. Deputy Miller testified that Mathis had indicated that Benham had tried to choke her and that she thought that Benham might try to kill her or himself.

[6] At sentencing, Benham introduced into evidence an email from Mathis stating that she “believe[d Benham] needs treatment and help [and that] prison time will not do him any good ․” Ex. Vol. 1, p. 7. Mathis also stated that Benham “can be an outstanding human being, and he has a good heart[.] He just needs help getting where he needs to be[.]” Id.

[7] In its sentencing order, the trial court identified three aggravators: the facts and circumstances of the offense, as described by Deputy Miller; Benham's criminal history, which includes juvenile adjudications, “at least ten prior misdemeanor convictions[,] and at least four prior felony convictions,” and at least eight probation violations; and that Benham is a high risk to reoffend. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 73. And the court identified two mitigators: Benham's participation in various programs while incarcerated; and Benham's guilty plea, which reflected that he had “taken responsibility for his actions and has avoided the necessity of a trial ․” Id. at 75.

[8] The trial court sentenced Benham to 910 days plus five years for being a habitual offender, for an aggregate sentence of seven and one-half years executed. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Benham argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. 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 offenses 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 6 felony is between six months and two and one-half years, with an advisory term of one year. I.C. § 35-50-2-7. And a habitual offender convicted of a Level 6 felony shall serve an additional fixed term that is between three and six years. I.C. § 35-50-2-8. The trial court imposed a 910-day executed sentence enhanced by five years for the habitual offender adjudication.

[12] Again, in imposing Benham's sentence, the trial court identified three aggravating circumstances: the facts and circumstances of the offense, as described by Deputy Miller; Benham's criminal history; and that Benham is at high risk to reoffend. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 73. And the court identified two mitigators: Benham's participation in various programs while incarcerated; and Benham's guilty plea, which reflects that he has “taken responsibility for his actions and has avoided the necessity of a trial ․” Id. at 85. The trial court rejected Benham's proffered mitigator that he has been fighting a substance abuse addiction for many years.

[13] Regarding the nature of the offense, Benham contends that

there was no evidence that the injuries sustained by Mathi[s] were more substantial than is typically expected in similar cases. There was no evidence that Mathi[s] or her daughter suffered any long term physical or mental health issues because of Benham's conduct. While serious in nature, Benham's conduct did not substantially exceed the elements of the offense he pleaded guilty to or the conduct proscribed by the legislature. The nature of Benham's offense did not warrant the imposition of a substantially aggravated sentence.

Appellant's Br. at 14. We do not agree.

[14] In the presence of Mathis's five-year-old daughter, Benham held Mathis by the neck as he held her up against a wall, and he ripped an earring out of her ear as he dragged her down a set of stairs. Those facts are particularly egregious, and we cannot say that Benham's sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense.

[15] In support of his character, Benham points out that he took responsibility for his actions and expressed remorse. And he asserts that “he allowed his mental health issues and his alcoholism to drive him to terrible conduct.” Id. Benham then provides details regarding his difficult childhood, which led to his early substance abuse and juvenile delinquency. Benham emphasizes his recent participation in anger management and substance abuse treatment, and he points out that he has qualified for an eighteen-month faith-based sobriety program if he were to be released from incarceration.

[16] However, at just thirty-two years old, Benham had accumulated at least five juvenile adjudications; at least four felony convictions; and at least ten misdemeanor convictions. Moreover, as the trial court found, Benham had previously violated his probation at least eight times. As the State points out, it is not surprising that Benham is at a high risk of reoffending. While Benham's engagement in programs designed to address his substance abuse and anger issues is admirable, it is significant that he has only participated in such programs while incarcerated. We cannot say that Benham's sentence is inappropriate in light of his character.

[17] For all these reasons, we affirm Benham's sentence.

[18] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

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