Dennis Price v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 49A05-1604-CR-910

In August 2014, Dennis Price severely beat his four‑year‑old son D.J., who later died of multiple blunt‑force traumas (bruising, skull fracture, broken ribs, perforated intestine). Price was caring for D.J. and a young daughter while his girlfriend worked.
Price initially gave misleading explanations (ibuprofen overdose, fall) and induced vomiting with a charcoal mixture instead of promptly seeking medical care; emergency personnel found extensive inconsistent bruising and D.J. was pronounced dead at the hospital.
Price admitted in a police interview that he repeatedly whipped and punched D.J. that day.
The State charged Price with murder, level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death, level 2 felony battery resulting in death of a child, and alleged habitual offender status; jury convicted on the charged counts and the court found habitual offender status.
Trial court merged the battery count with murder, imposed concurrent terms (64 years for murder, 35 for neglect) and added a 19‑year habitual enhancement, for an aggregate 83‑year sentence.
On appeal the State conceded the level 1 neglect conviction could not stand as entered alongside murder and the Court of Appeals remanded to reentry of neglect as a level 6 felony; the court affirmed the 83‑year aggregate sentence as not inappropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether entry of both murder and level 1 felony neglect (resulting in death) violates double jeopardy/common‑law statutory construction	State: convictions may not be based on the same bodily injury when one is an elevated version of the other (concedes error and seeks remand)	Price: challenged validity of entering both convictions (but State conceded)	Court: double‑jeopardy principles bar both; remanded to enter neglect as level 6 felony and resentence on that count (no change to aggregate term)
Whether Price’s 83‑year aggregate sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B)	Price: sentence is excessive/manifestly unreasonable given his character (cites low IQ)	State: sentence justified by extreme facts (beating, victim age, failure to seek care), criminal history, habitual enhancement	Court: affirmed sentence; the offense circumstances and character support an above‑advisory term and Price failed to show inappropriateness

Montgomery v. State, 21 N.E.3d 846 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (one conviction cannot stand when another conviction is an elevated version based on the same bodily injury)
Strong v. State, 870 N.E.2d 442 (Ind. 2007) (double‑jeopardy/common‑law rule on overlapping convictions)
Mallory v. State, 563 N.E.2d 640 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (failure to provide necessary medical care can constitute depriving a dependent of necessary support)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (defendant bears burden to show sentence inappropriate; standards for appellate review)
Akard v. State, 937 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. 2010) (scope of appellate authority under Appellate Rule 7(B))