Clifton James Mauricio, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Clifton James Mauricio appeals his sentence following his convictions for Level 2 felony attempted robbery, Level 3 felony aggravated battery, four counts of Level 3 felony criminal confinement, and a firearm enhancement. Mauricio presents one issue for our review, namely, whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] The facts underlying this appeal were set out in Mauricio's prior appeal:

SMS Property Management is a business in Fort Wayne. Sean Stinson is the owner, Thomas Hood is the maintenance supervisor, David Voltz shows properties and processes applications, and Lia Green oversees the leases and collects payments. Residents pay their rent by cash, check, or money order, but mostly cash, and the company has a system for regularly making bank deposits, with different employees taking turns going to the bank.

As of May 2019, Green had worked at SMS for around four years. During that time, she came to know a resident named Clayton Mauricio. When Clayton went to SMS every month to pay his rent, Green spoke to him. Green knew Clayton's voice “very well,” including that he was “soft-spoken” and had a stutter. Clayton has an identical twin, Clifton, but Green didn't know that.

On May 10, Stinson, Hood, Voltz, and Green were at the SMS office. Shortly before 5:00 p.m., another employee left to make a bank deposit. Before the office closed at 6:00 p.m., a man wearing all black and a motorcycle helmet entered the office, pointed a gun at them, announced “[t]his is a robbery,” and ordered them to “get the fu** down.” The man said that if they didn't listen to him, he would “blow [their] fu**in’ head[s] off.” He also threatened to shoot them if they looked at him. The man asked where the money was, but they told him that someone had already left for the bank.

Once everyone was on the ground, the man went to a backpack he had brought with him and pulled out zip ties. He first zip-tied Stinson's hands behind his back. As the man started to zip-tie Hood's hands, Voltz, who had a license to carry a handgun, took his gun out of his waistband, stood up, and started firing at the man. The man returned fire and took cover in a back office. Voltz and the man continued firing at each other until they both ran out of bullets, at which point they started fighting hand-to-hand. Voltz, who had recently undergone heart surgery and was on blood thinners, was exhausted and bleeding profusely. He told the man he was done fighting. Voltz thought they were done fighting, but the man, whose helmet had come off, hit Voltz on his face and head with it.

Eventually, the man packed up, put his helmet back on, and left on a bicycle. Hood locked the door and called 911. Voltz was seriously injured. He had been shot above the left eye, in the left shoulder, in the left abdomen, and in the left hip, and he had a broken nose, broken ribs, and missing teeth. He was taken to the hospital, where he ultimately recovered after being in a coma for several days.

Police responded to the scene, where they found a significant amount of blood. There was a blood trail approximately 1,400 feet long that led away from SMS and tracked the path taken by the man on the bicycle. Police collected blood from various areas at the scene for DNA testing and took a buccal swab from Voltz. The initial results showed that the DNA from the blood came from Voltz and an “unknown individual.” Several months later, an “investigative lead” led police to seek a search warrant for a buccal swab from Clifton. Once police learned that Clifton has a twin, they took a buccal swab from Clayton as well.

The results showed that it was one trillion times more likely that the DNA from some of the blood collected at the scene belonged to Voltz and either Clifton or his brother than if it originated from two unknown, unrelated individuals. Because Clifton and Clayton are identical twins, their DNA profiles could not be distinguished.

In July 2020, the State charged Clifton with the following seven counts: Count I: Level 2 felony attempted robbery, Count II: Level 3 felony aggravated battery (Voltz), Count III: Level 3 felony criminal confinement (Voltz), Count IV: Level 3 felony criminal confinement (Hood); Count V: Level 3 felony criminal confinement (Green); Count VI: Level 3 felony criminal confinement (Stinson), and Count VII: a firearm enhancement. A jury trial was held in June 2024.

* * *

Clifton was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced him to 30 years for Count I, 16 years for Count II, 5 years each for Counts III-VI, and 20 years for the firearm enhancement. The court ordered the sentences to run consecutively, for a total sentence of 86 years.

Mauricio v. State, No. 24A-CR-2009, 2025 WL 1156936, at *1-2 (Ind. Ct. App. April 21, 2025) (“Mauricio I”) (record citations omitted).

[4] In Mauricio I, Mauricio appealed his convictions and sentence. We affirmed his convictions but reversed and remanded to the trial court to impose a sentence consistent with Indiana Code section 35-50-1-2,¹ which imposes a cap of thirty-two years on his aggregate sentence for his convictions on Counts I and III-VI. Id. at *3. On remand, the trial court sentenced Mauricio to an aggregate term of sixty-eight years, which was consistent with our instructions. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Mauricio argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses 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).

[6] 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).

[7] The sentencing range for a Level 2 felony is between ten and thirty years, with an advisory term of seventeen and one-half years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5. The sentencing range for a Level 3 felony is between three and sixteen years, with an advisory term of nine years. I.C. § 35-50-2-5(b). And a firearm enhancement adds an additional five to twenty years to the sentence. I.C. § 35-50-2-11.

[8] Here, the trial court imposed sentence as follows: twenty-seven years for the Level 2 felony robbery; sixteen years for the Level 3 felony aggravated battery; five years for each Level 3 felony criminal confinement conviction; and twenty years for the firearm enhancement, for an aggregate sixty-eight-year sentence.

[9] In imposing Mauricio's sentence, the trial court identified no mitigators and the following aggravators: “criminal history including Murder[;] ․ violent crime since you were a teenager, I believe 14[ years old; m]ultiple attempts [at rehabilitation] have failed[; y]ou were on probation[ at the time of the instant offenses; v]ictim impact [statements;] ․ nature and circumstances of the offense[s; and] multiple prior gun offenses.” Tr. pp. 23-24.

[10] Mauricio concedes that the offenses were “egregious” and does not argue for a sentence revision based on the nature of the offenses. Appellant's Br. at 24. However, in support of his good character, Mauricio cites letters from friends and family describing him as a “hard[-]working, respectful, and compassionate man” who has faced difficult circumstances in his life. See, e.g., Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 65. Mauricio argues that “he has some positive qualities to give to his neighbors, friends, and society.” Appellant's Br. at 26. And he cites his IRAS score as showing that he is a low risk to reoffend.

[11] However, as the trial court found and despite his IRAS score, Mauricio, now fifty years old, has a significant criminal history, having been convicted of murder in 1995, as well as prior convictions for criminal confinement, battery, criminal recklessness, and resisting law enforcement. Notably, Mauricio was on probation when he committed the instant offenses. The positive character traits described by Mauricio's family and friends are completely overshadowed by the intense violence displayed during his commission of the instant offenses. After viciously beating Voltz, who was lying on the floor and bleeding profusely, Mauricio struck Voltz in his head and face with a motorcycle helmet. Voltz nearly died as a result of his injuries. Thus, we cannot say that Mauricio's sentence is inappropriate.

[12] For all these reasons, we affirm Mauricio's sentence.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Indiana Code section 35-50-1-2 imposes a cap on the aggregate sentence imposed for multiple offenses that constitute an episode of criminal conduct where the offenses are not crimes of violence. Here, the State agreed with Mauricio that his aggregate sentence for Counts I and III-VI could not exceed thirty-two years, and that is what the trial court ordered.

Mathias, Judge.

Kenworthy, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.