William Foddrill v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 20, 2016
• Docket: 16A05-1511-CR-2083
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 20 2016, 9:47 am

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

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Leanna Weissmann Gregory F. Zoeller Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Larry D. Allen Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

William Foddrill, June 20, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 16A05-1511-CR-2083 v. Appeal from the Decatur Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Matthew D. Appellee-Plaintiff. Bailey, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 16D01-1407-FA-489

Bradford, Judge.

Case Summary

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A05-1511-CR-2083 | June 20, 2016 Page 1 of 4 [1] In 2014, Appellant-Defendant Willaim Foddrill impregnated his twelve-year-

old step-daughter and subsequently pled guilty to Class A felony child

molesting. On appeal, Foddrill argues that his twenty-five-year executed

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

Concluding otherwise, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] Between January and May of 2014, then-twenty-five-year-old Foddrill had

sexual intercourse with and impregnated his twelve-year-old step-daughter,

M.L. M.L. gave birth to Foddrill’s child before her thirteenth birthday. On

August 2015, Foddrill pled guilty to one count of Class A felony child

molesting. Foddrill’s plea agreement provided that he would be sentenced to

“25 years at the Indiana Department of Corrections (“DOC”), with the

executed portion and suspended portion OPEN to the Court.” Appellant’s

App. p. 73. The trial court ordered that Foddrill’s entire twenty-five-year

sentence be executed in the DOC.

Discussion and Decision [3] On appeal, Foddrill argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the

nature of the offense and his character. “Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) empowers us

to independently review and revise sentences authorized by statute if, after due

consideration, we find the trial court’s decision inappropriate in light of the

nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Anderson v. State, 989

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A05-1511-CR-2083 | June 20, 2016 Page 2 of 4 N.E.2d 823, 827 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. “An appellant bears the

burden of showing both prongs of the inquiry favor revision of [his]

sentence.” Id. (citing Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind.

2006)). “We must give ’deference to a trial court’s sentencing decision, both

because Rule 7(B) requires us to give due consideration to that decision and

because we understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings

to its sentencing decisions.’” Gil v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1231, 1237 (Ind. Ct. App.

2013) (quoting Trainor v. State, 950 N.E.2d 352, 355-56 (Ind. Ct. App.

2011), trans. denied.).

[4] Foddrill does not argue that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature

of his offense and admits that his offense is “awful” and justifies an enhanced

sentence. Appellant’s Br. p. 5. However, “awful” does not begin to describe

the appalling nature of Foddrill’s actions and the extent of damage he has

caused M.L. and her family. M.L. missed months of school while pregnant

and, after giving birth, was prevented from returning to school for some time

due to excessive bullying. M.L. was harassed by her classmates at school and

on social media due to her pregnancy and has suffered from depression as a

result. Furthermore, M.L. has been burdened by her involuntarily entry into

motherhood at an incredibly young age, effectively stripping her of her

childhood.

[5] Foddrill argues that, despite his offense, his character acts to “rebalance the

scale” and justifies revision of his sentence. Appellant’s Br. p. 7. However,

Foddrill bears the burden of showing both his offense and character justify a

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A05-1511-CR-2083 | June 20, 2016 Page 3 of 4 revised sentence and he has failed to do so by admitting that his sentence is not

inappropriate in light of the egregious nature of his offense. Nevertheless,

Foddrill’s character also merits an enhanced sentence. Despite Foddrill’s claim

that he is remorseful and took responsibility for his crime, Foddrill initially did

not acknowledge that M.L.’s child was his and only pled guilty after it was

proven that he was the father of the child. The trial court found that this

“reflect[ed] negatively on his acceptance of responsibility for what he did.” Tr.

p. 146.

[6] Even assuming Foddrill is of good character––a proposition which is contrary

to his taking advantage of a child over whom he held a position of trust and

care––Foddrill’s sentence is not inappropriate and, in fact, is quite favorable

considering his offense. The sentencing range for a Class A felony is twenty to

fifty years with an advisory sentence of thirty years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.

Foddrill’s sentence was five years less than the advisory and only half of the

fifty years he could have faced absent the plea agreement. Accordingly, we find

that Foddrill’s sentence was not inappropriate in light of his character and

offense.

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

Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A05-1511-CR-2083 | June 20, 2016 Page 4 of 4