Wayne Coleman Wilson, III v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 30, 2019
• Docket: 19A-CR-31
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 30 2019, 8:45 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Leanna Weissmann Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Matthew B. Mackenzie Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Wayne Coleman Wilson, III, July 30, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-31 v. Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Teresa D. Harper, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 53C09-1604-F2-316

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-31 | July 30, 2019 Page 1 of 5 [1] Wayne Wilson, III, appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court after he

pleaded guilty to Level 2 Felony Dealing in a Narcotic Drug, arguing that the

sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

Finding the sentence not inappropriate, we affirm.

[2] On April 15, 2016, a confidential informant working with the Monroe County

Police Department scheduled a controlled drug buy with Wilson. The

informant arranged to have Wilson sell him upwards of $6,500 worth of heroin.

At a Kroger parking lot in Bloomington, Wilson had arrived to meet the

informant when police officers surrounded his vehicle. After Wilson’s arrest,

officers discovered two bags containing a total of seventy to seventy-five grams

of a substance that was later determined to be heroin. Wilson immediately

admitted that the heroin was his and that he had planned on selling it to the

confidential informant. Wilson has a criminal record and had previously been

convicted of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, Class A

misdemeanor criminal trespass, and Class C misdemeanor knowingly or

intentionally operating a vehicle without a license.

[3] On April 19, 2016, the State charged Wilson with one count of Level 2 felony

dealing in a narcotic drug. On January 5, 2018, Wilson pleaded guilty as

charged. The trial court continued sentencing so that Wilson’s attorney might

be granted leave to explore community probation options. While out on bond,

but before sentencing, Wilson was charged with two felony counts of

obstruction of justice in federal court on March 18, 2018. Federal prosecutors

suspected Wilson of sending threatening text messages to a cooperating witness

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-31 | July 30, 2019 Page 2 of 5 in a sex trafficking case against one of Wilson’s associates, James Young. Also

while out on bond, Wilson continued dealing in various drugs, including

marijuana, Oxycontin, and Percocet. The trial court here waited to sentence

Wilson until after the disposition of his federal charges.

[4] On November 19, 2018, Wilson pleaded guilty in federal court to felony witness

tampering and witness harassment and received a thirty-three-month sentence

in federal prison. Finally, on December 6, 2018, the trial court sentenced

Wilson to seventeen and one-half years in the Department of Correction, with

three years suspended to probation. Wilson now appeals.

[5] Wilson argues that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate in

light of the nature of the offense and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B)

states that a “Court may revise a sentence . . . 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.” The defendant

bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v.

State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). In determining whether the sentence

is inappropriate, we will consider numerous factors such as culpability of the

defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a “myriad

[of] other factors that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895

N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). It is our job to leaven the outliers, not to

achieve a perceived “correct” sentencing result. Id. at 1225.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-31 | July 30, 2019 Page 3 of 5 [6] The maximum sentence for a Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug

conviction is thirty years, and the minimum sentence is ten years. Ind. Code §

35-50-2-4.5. The advisory sentence is seventeen and one-half years. Id. Here, the

trial court sentenced Wilson to the advisory term of seventeen and one-half

years, with three years suspended to probation.

[7] First, as to the nature of the offense, Wilson admitted to dealing in extremely

dangerous quantities of drugs. Police officers discovered between seventy and

seventy-five grams of heroin in Wilson’s vehicle at the time of his arrest—more

than seven times the amount necessary to convict a defendant of Level 2 felony

dealing in a narcotic drug. Drug crimes, especially when there is an ongoing

opioid epidemic occurring in our State, can inflict massive damage on a

community. Wilson was willing to traffic in large quantities of these drugs and

to drive all the way to Bloomington to do so. Therefore, we find that nature of

Wilson’s offense does not render his sentence inappropriate.

[8] Next, as to Wilson’s character, Wilson makes light of the fact that he has been

charged and convicted of numerous offenses in the past. See Lindsey v. State, 916

N.E.2d 230, 241 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (finding that a “criminal record alone

justifies the sentence imposed by the trial court”). Wilson has defied the law

many times, accumulated numerous convictions, and has not changed his

character despite multiple opportunities for improvement. Moreover, Wilson

was charged with and convicted of a federal crime while he was awaiting

sentencing for his state felony conviction. And, the fact that Wilson continued

dealing in illegal substances while out on bond demonstrates a lack of reform or

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-31 | July 30, 2019 Page 4 of 5 remorse for what he has done. Therefore, we find that Wilson’s character does

not render his sentence inappropriate.

[9] In sum, we will not revise Wilson’s sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate

Rule 7(B).

[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-31 | July 30, 2019 Page 5 of 5