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