Elberta N. Jackson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 19A-CR-1325

On July 20, 2018, Marion police arrested Elberta N. Jackson; she resisted officers, was dragged into a vehicle, slammed into an escorting officer at the jail, and bit an officer’s leg, leaving a visible bite mark and bruising.
Jackson was charged with battery (Level 5), battery (Level 6), and resisting law enforcement (Class A misdemeanor); additional counts were later dismissed as part of a plea agreement.
A jury had been empaneled, but Jackson pleaded guilty to the three counts before trial; sentencing followed.
The trial court imposed an aggregate four-year sentence, with all but Jackson’s already-served time suspended to probation.
The court found Jackson’s criminal history an aggravator and found remorse, mental-health issues, and extreme emotional distress at the time of the offenses as mitigators.
Jackson appealed under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B), arguing the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and her character (remorse, bereavement, mental-health history, plea).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jackson’s aggregate 4-year sentence (all but time served suspended) is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B) in light of the nature of the offenses and her character	Sentence is appropriate given physical resistance, biting and injury to an officer, multiple prior felony convictions and prior probation revocations, and the State’s trial preparation	Sentence is inappropriate because Jackson was remorseful, having a bad day (recent bereavement), has mental-health issues, pleaded guilty and obtained dismissal of other counts, and apologized to officers	Affirmed. The sentence is not inappropriate: nature of offenses (two physical altercations, bite with injury) and Jackson’s criminal history justify deference to the trial court’s sentence

Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (advisory sentence is the legislature’s starting point)
Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635 (Ind. 2017) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate; appellate review should not seek a perceived ‘correct’ result)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (trial court sentencing decisions deserve considerable deference)
King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (appellate inquiry asks whether imposed sentence is inappropriate, not whether another would be preferable)
Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111 (Ind. 2015) (deference to trial court prevails unless compelling evidence of the defendant’s positive character or unusually restrained offense justifies revision)