William A. Connor v. State of Indiana, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 279

Connor (born 1997), adopted from an orphanage, diagnosed with reactive attachment and bipolar disorders and with prior mental-health involvement and suicide attempts.
At age 17 he admitted to multiple forced sexual acts with his 16-year-old adoptive sister; charged with criminal deviate conduct (Class B felony) and later with a separate rape count that was dismissed in exchange for a guilty plea in Cause 1033.
He pleaded guilty to criminal deviate conduct; trial court ordered a PSI and sentenced him to 14 years in the DOC with 4 years suspended to probation.
Trial court found two aggravators (prior delinquent conduct; significant harm to victim) and one slight mitigator (mental-health condition); noted high risk to reoffend per risk assessment.
On appeal Connor argued his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), focusing on his character and mitigating life history; the State contended review was waived for failure to argue both prongs of Rule 7(B).
The court affirmed, holding Connor did not meet his burden to show the 14-year sentence was inappropriate in light of the offense and his character.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Connor's 14-year sentence is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B)	Sentence is excessive given youth, traumatic early life, mental-health diagnoses, and need for rehabilitation	(State) Connor waived review by not arguing the nature-of-offense prong; sentence within statutory range justified by serious nature and aggravators	Court affirmed: Connor failed to persuade that sentence was inappropriate; did not overcome seriousness of offense and his limited engagement in treatment
Whether failing to argue both Rule 7(B) prongs waives review	Connor focused solely on character; asked court to weigh character more heavily	State urged waiver under precedent requiring argument on both nature of offense and character	Majority: no waiver — court will consider both prongs; Concurring judge: would find forfeiture for failing to argue both prongs

Trainor v. State, 950 N.E.2d 352 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (discusses appellate authority to revise sentences)
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (sets standard for Rule 7(B) inappropriateness review)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (Rule 7(B) review is holistic and meant to "leaven the outliers")
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (trial court’s discretionary sentencing reasons reviewed for abuse but weighing not reweighed by appellate court)
Hamilton v. State, 955 N.E.2d 723 (Ind. 2011) (example where supreme court revised sentence without appellant arguing character; discussed in concurrence)
Payton v. State, 818 N.E.2d 493 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (example of appellate revision where character and offense balancing led to reduction)