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,
Nov 20 2013, 10:12 am
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
PAUL J. PODLEJSKI GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
MICHAEL GENE WORDEN
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
CARLOWE WILSON, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 48A02-1304-CR-440
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MADISON CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable David A. Happe, Judge
Cause No. 48C04-1202-FC-296
November 20, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MATHIAS, Judge
Carlowe Wilson (“Wilson”) pleaded guilty in Madison Circuit Court to one count
of Class D felony non-support of a dependent child. He was sentenced to a term of three
years, with two years executed in the Department of Correction and one year served in
community corrections. Wilson appeals and argues that his sentence is inappropriate in
light of the nature of his offenses and the character of the offender.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
Wilson, who lives in Plainfield, Illinois, has fathered four children with three
different mothers. His children range in age from fifteen years old to twenty-five years
old. At least one child, A.W., resides in Indiana. At one time, Wilson was employed as a
foreman for a business that cleaned semi-trucks. Prior to that job, he was self-employed.
However, he has not been gainfully employed since 2009.
On February 15, 1994, the Madison Superior Court entered a paternity order
requiring Wilson to pay twenty-five dollars per week for A.W., one of his four children,
an amount that was apparently never increased. During 2011 and 2012 alone, Wilson
paid approximately $2,000 in support for A.W, or at least $600 less than the aggregate of
the rate of twenty-five dollars per week. Prior to that, Wilson paid support only sporadic,
small amounts for the support of A.W. On December 31, 2012, Wilson owed at least
$7,702.75 in child support for A.W alone. In total, Wilson has amassed more than
$43,000 in child support arrearages for all of his four children.
2
On February 15, 2012, the State charged Wilson with Class C felony non-support
of a dependent child, a crime involving an arrearage of at least fifteen thousand dollars.
On February 11, 2013, Wilson appeared before the trial court and pleaded guilty in an
open plea to the lesser-included offense of Class D felony non-support of a dependent
child, a crime involving an arrearage of less than fifteen thousand dollars.
A sentencing hearing was held on April 8, 2013. The trial court considered
Wilson’s guilty plea and his acceptance of responsibility for the child support arrearage
as mitigating circumstances. The court found Wilson’s “extensive criminal history” as a
“substantial aggravating factor.” Tr. p. 62. The court concluded that the aggravating
circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and ordered Wilson to serve a
term of three years, with two years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction and
one year served in community corrections. Wilson now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
Wilson argues that his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule
7(B), which provides: “[t]he Court 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.”
In Anglemyer v. State, our supreme court explained:
It is on this basis alone that a criminal defendant may now challenge his or
her sentence where the trial court has entered a sentencing statement that
includes a reasonably detailed recitation of its reasons for imposing a
particular sentence that is supported by the record, and the reasons are not
improper as a matter of law, but has imposed a sentence with which the
defendant takes issue.
3
868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007). “[A] defendant must persuade the appellate court that
his or her sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review.” Id.
Wilson’s Class D felony conviction subjects him to a sentence in the range of six
months to three years, with the advisory sentence being one and one-half years. Ind.
Code § 35-50-2-7. Wilson was sentenced to two years executed and one year served in
community corrections. He argues that his sentence is inappropriate because the trial
court should have considered the fact that Wilson is the primary caregiver for his father,
who suffers from multiple sclerosis, that Wilson has plans to resume employment, and
that Wilson was not first placed on in-home detention or in community corrections to
allow him to satisfy his responsibilities to his children. Wilson seeks yet another chance
to provide for his children, emphasizing that he “has changed and does not believe
himself to be the same person he used to be” and that he was “trying his best to take care
of these things.” Appellant’s Br. at 9.
We are not persuaded. For nearly two decades, Wilson has shirked his
responsibility to provide for the children he has fathered. He presently owes more than
$43,000 in child support to the three mothers of his four children. He has been
accumulating these child support arrearages for the past eighteen years at least and,
during that time, has rarely paid child support for A.W. The length of time of non-
payment and the enormous amount of child support arrearage accumulated by Wilson
makes the nature of his offense particularly reprehensible. Simply said, Wilson’s
fatherhood was a choice, and one’s choices in life carry consequences. Fatherhood
brings great responsibility along with its great joy and reward. However, Wilson chose to
4
avoid his responsibilities as a father and that choice carries the consequences imposed by
our criminal justice system.
Wilson’s character provides further support for the trial court’s sentencing
decision. Wilson has an extensive criminal history that began when he was a juvenile.
At the time the instant charges were filed, he had been convicted of carrying a handgun
without a license, aggravated battery, burglary, aggravated false impersonation, and theft,
and he had previously violated the term of his probation for his burglary conviction.
Wilson’s history of failing to comply with the law and with his child support obligations
does not convince us that his character warrants a reduction in his sentence.
Wilson has had many opportunities to avoid the sentence handed down by the trial
court but chose instead to ignore his responsibility to his children. He has not been
gainfully employed since 2009 and, even during the pendency of this action, failed to
make support payments or find employment. As the trial court aptly noted at Wilson’s
sentencing hearing,
[Felony nonsupport cases] are not collection cases. We’re not here to try
and get you to pay, we’re here to determine what level of responsibility you
should have for not having paid [in] the past when you were able to do that.
So the idea that now we’re really serious, now we just want you to pay,
that’s not what this is about and I think you’ve fundamentally
misunderstood that. You brought children into the world, four of them. As
a parent, your chief moral and legal responsibility is to provide for your
children, and you didn’t do that. You sat back and did other things.
You’ve got a history of gun, battery, burglary charges. And you chose to
live that lifestyle instead of supporting your children and that has
consequences.
Tr. pp. 60-61.
5
Conclusion
For all of these reasons, we conclude that Wilson has not sustained his burden of
establishing that his three-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and the character of the offender.
Affirmed.
NAJAM, J., and BROWN, J., concur.
6
Carlowe Wilson v. State of Indiana
Combined Opinion