Ryan James Shelley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. Apr 29 2016, 8:51 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE R. Patrick Magrath Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Madison, Indiana Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of Indiana Lyubov Gore Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Ryan James Shelley, April 29, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 40A04-1510-CR-01709 v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff Appeal from the Jennings Circuit Court The Honorable Jonathan W. Webster, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 40C01-1301-MR-001 Bailey, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A04-1510-CR-01709 | April 29, 2016 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] Ryan James Shelley (“Shelley”) appeals his fifty-eight year sentence for murder,1 asking this court to find his sentence inappropriate and revise it to the advisory sentence of fifty-five years.2 We affirm. Facts and Procedural History [2] On December 27th, 2012, Shelley shook his girlfriend’s infant daughter, causing her death. He was charged with murder,3 battery resulting in death,4 battery resulting in serious bodily injury,5 aggravated battery,6 and neglect of a dependent resulting in death.7 Shelley pled guilty to murder as part of a plea agreement, providing that the court impose a sentence between fifty-five and sixty years and dismiss his other charges. The trial court sentenced Shelley to fifty-eight years imprisonment, ordered him to pay a hundred dollar fine, and dismissed his remaining charges. (App.172-74.) Shelley now appeals. 1 Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1). Indiana’s Criminal Code was substantially revised, effective July 1, 2014. At all times, we refer to the version of the criminal code in effect at the time of Shelley’s offenses. 2 I.C. § 35-50-2-3. 3 I.C. § 35-42-1-1(1). 4 I.C. § 35-42-2-1(a)(5). 5 I.C. § 35-42-2-1(a)(4). 6 I.C. § 35-42-2-1.5(1). 7 I.C. § 35-46-1-4(b)(3). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A04-1510-CR-01709 | April 29, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Discussion and Decision [3] The authority granted to this Court by Article 7, § 6 of the Indiana Constitution permitting independent appellate review and revision of criminal sentences was implemented by the Indiana Supreme Court through Appellate Rule 7(B). We may “revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). The primary purpose in this type of review is to “leaven the outliers” and focus on the aggregate sentence for the crime(s) committed. Caldwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1125 (Ind. 2008). [4] The nature of the offense gives us no reason to revise the sentence downward. Shelley pled guilty to murder of a child for whom he was in a position as caretaker. [5] Turning to his character, Shelley has at least 14 criminal convictions (including two felonies) and one formal juvenile adjudication. His convictions include visiting a common nuisance, criminal mischief, battery, alcohol and drug possession, resisting law enforcement, sexual misconduct with a minor, and failure to register as a sex offender. While he expressed remorse, Shelley benefited from his plea agreement under which he received less than the maximum possible penalty. Conclusion Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A04-1510-CR-01709 | April 29, 2016 Page 3 of 4 [6] In light of Shelley’s offense and his character, we conclude the sentence is not inappropriate. [7] Affirmed. Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A04-1510-CR-01709 | April 29, 2016 Page 4 of 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
