Preview:

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.

FILED
Dec 23 2008, 9:00 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MARK SMALL Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana IAN McLEAN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JARA CLAIRDAY, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 38A05-0806-CR-375

APPEAL FROM THE JAY CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Brian D. Hutchison, Judge Cause No. 38C01-0709-FC-12

December 23, 2008 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BROWN, Judge

Jara Clairday appeals her sentence for criminal recklessness resulting in serious bodily injury as a class D felony.1 Clairday raises one issue, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing her.2 We affirm. The relevant facts follow. On September 13, 2007, Clairday struck Glenn Pfeiffer on the head several times with a metal dog chain. This striking resulted in extreme pain, lacerations, bleeding, bruising, and impaired vision. On September 17, 2007, the State charged Clairday with battery resulting in serious bodily injury as a class C felony. On March 18, 2008, the State charged Clairday with criminal recklessness resulting in serious bodily injury as a class D felony. That same day, Clairday pled guilty to criminal recklessness as a class D felony, and the State agreed to dismiss the charge of battery. Clairday also agreed to admit to a probation violation under cause number 38D001-0607-CM-120, and the State agreed not to file a probation violation under cause number 38D01-0608-FD-82. The trial court found the following aggravators: (1) Clairday's prior criminal history; (2) Clairday was on probation at the time of the current offense; and (3) the victim lost sight in his eye as a result of Clairday's actions. The trial court found Clairday's statement of remorse as a mitigator but did not give it much weight. The trial
1

Ind. Code

Download Jara Clairday v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law