Doralee A. Burress v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 05A02-1606-CR-1398

Background

Doralee Burress, mother of infant B.W., was charged with Level 5 felony neglect after B.W. was found with multiple serious injuries (skull fractures, rib fractures, tibia/ankle fractures, lacerated liver, facial bruising) in different stages of healing; she admitted noticing injuries but failed to seek medical treatment.
First plea agreement (plea to Level 5 with home detention and sentencing left to court but precluding executed DOC time) was rejected by the trial court after review of the PSI; court cited severity of injuries and public confidence concerns.
Burress moved for a change of judge alleging bias based on the court’s reliance on PSI information and local practice; affidavit from former Chief Probation Officer stated that under local combined plea/sentencing practice PSIs often omitted a defendant’s version of events.
Trial court denied the change-of-judge motion, found no legal basis for bias, and explained it rejected the plea because it restricted sentencing discretion and was unreasonable given the alleged facts.
Burress entered a second plea to amended Level 6 felony neglect (no sentencing cap), and at joint sentencing the court imposed 2½ years executed (maximum for Level 6), citing aggravators: infant’s extreme vulnerability, ongoing/severe injuries, and that a lesser sentence would depreciate the offense; court identified several mitigators (no criminal history, remorse, family hardship).
On appeal Burress challenged denial of change of judge, asserted improper aggravators at sentencing, and argued her sentence was inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B); the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in denying motion for change of judge	Burress: judge was biased for relying on PSI material obtained in violation of local practice and for rejecting a reasonable plea	State: judge’s rejection based on evaluation of evidence and lawful discretion; exposure to PSI and adverse rulings do not establish bias	No error — affidavit did not state historical facts supporting a rational inference of bias; rejection of plea was discretionary and grounded in record
Whether sentencing court abused discretion by relying on improper aggravators	Burress: court used elements of offense (dependence) and impermissible factual characterizations (daily "torture", depreciating seriousness) as aggravators	State: court referenced particularized nature and severity of the infant’s condition and circumstances, which are permissible aggravators	No abuse — court may consider nature and circumstances (vulnerability, ongoing severe harm); aggravators supported by record
Whether sentence was inappropriate under App. R. 7(B)	Burress: lack of criminal history, employment, compliance, remorse militate against maximum; not among worst offenders	State: severity of ongoing injuries to helpless infant and failure to seek care justify maximum	Sentence affirmed — maximum for Level 6 (2½ years) not inappropriate given nature of offense and offender’s conduct

Key Cases Cited

Lehman v. State, 55 N.E.3d 863 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (standard for objective review of change-of-judge affidavit)
Voss v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1211 (Ind. 2006) (treatment of affidavit facts as true for bias inquiry)
Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259 (Ind. 2014) (exposure to evidence and adverse rulings generally insufficient to establish judicial bias)
Nybo v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (trial court’s discretion to reject plea agreements)
Million v. State, 646 N.E.2d 998 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (placement in community corrections is discretionary and not a right)
Gleason v. State, 965 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (distinction between elements of crime and permissible aggravators)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standards for sentencing)
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (burden on defendant to show sentence inappropriate under Rule 7(B))
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (factors for Appellate Rule 7(B) sentence review)