Nytarian Ray Callahan v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
27A02-1606-CR-1504
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 29, 2017Background
- On July 14, 2015, 17-year-old Nytarian Ray Callahan and two 15-year-old co-defendants entered R.H.’s home through a kitchen window, threatened her and her four sleeping children, and committed repeated sexual assaults (vaginal, anal, and forced fellatio) while stealing electronic devices. The victim suffered bruising and genital lacerations.
- Callahan pleaded guilty to twelve counts of Level 1 felony rape, one count of Level 1 felony conspiracy to commit rape, Level 4 felony burglary, and Level 5 felony robbery.
- At sentencing the trial court found as aggravators: the nature of the crime (home invasion, multiple rapes in presence of children), Callahan’s statements/attitudes in the presentence report and psychosexual evaluation, and his juvenile record. The court found as mitigators Callahan’s age and his guilty plea.
- Callahan argued for a lesser sentence based on a psychologist’s report that a chromosomal deletion, fetal alcohol/cocaine exposure, and related deficits impaired his ability to read social cues and understand nonconsent, and claimed a co-defendant told him the sex was consensual.
- The trial court rejected that explanation as inconsistent with the physical evidence, the victim’s testimony, and co-defendants’ testimony, and imposed concurrent 40-year terms (with 4 years suspended) for the Level 1 felonies, plus concurrent terms for the burglary and robbery.
- On appeal under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), Callahan claimed his aggregate forty-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggregate 40‑year sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B) | State: Sentence is supported by the brutal nature of the home invasion and sexual assaults and offender’s attitudes/juvenile record | Callahan: Developmental and genetic disorders impaired his ability to perceive nonconsent; sentence is excessive given his youth and impairments | Affirmed: Sentence not inappropriate given severity of crimes, threats to children, physical injuries, and lack of credit to defendant’s explanation |
Key Cases Cited
- Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 2012) (appellate review under Rule 7(B) asks whether sentence is inappropriate, not whether it is correct)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (sentencing is discretionary and trial court’s judgment merits considerable deference)
- Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111 (Ind. 2015) (court will overturn sentence only when compelling evidence shows nature of offense or character of offender in a positive light)
- Pierce v. State, 949 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. 2011) (advisory sentence is the Legislature’s starting point for appropriateness review)
- Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (defendant bears the burden to show his sentence is inappropriate)