MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Sep 15 2016, 8:51 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
T. Andrew Perkins Gregory F. Zoeller
Peterson Waggoner & Perkins, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Rochester, Indiana Larry D. Allen
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Trevor Williams, September 15, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
25A03-1604-CR-905
v. Appeal from the Fulton Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Wayne E. Steele,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
25D01-0810-FB-480
25D01-0810-FC-485
25D01-0903-FB-95
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 25A03-1604-CR-905 | September 15, 2016 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary
[1] Trevor Williams (“Williams”) brings a belated appeal to challenge his sentence
imposed following his pleas of guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Arson, as a
Class B felony,1 Burglary, as a Class B felony,2 and Escape, as a Class C felony.3
He presents the sole issue of whether his aggregate sentence is inappropriate.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On September 19, 2008, Williams and his friends discussed setting fire to a hay-
filled barn in Fulton County. Williams then started a fire, and the barn and its
contents were destroyed.
[3] On September 28, 2008, Williams broke into a Fulton County residence with
the intent to steal property. He was observed leaving the residence carrying a
shotgun wrapped in a hooded sweatshirt.
[4] After he had been taken into police custody, Williams agreed to act as a police
informant. On October 6, 2008, Williams was given $160.00, fitted with a
1
Ind. Code §§ 35-43-1-1, 35-41-5-2.
2
I.C. § 35-43-2-1.
3
I.C. § 35-44-3-5. This statutory provision has been repealed and recodified.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 25A03-1604-CR-905 | September 15, 2016 Page 2 of 8
recording device, and transported to a Fulton County residence for the purpose
of conducting a controlled drug buy. However, Williams abandoned the
recording device and escaped out the back door.
[5] On June 11, 2009, Williams pled guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Arson,
Burglary, and Escape. Pursuant to the terms of his plea agreement with the
State, the executed portion of the sentence for each Class B felony was to be
capped at ten years. Sentencing on the Class C felony was left to the discretion
of the trial court.
[6] On July 9, 2009, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing at which
Williams testified. The trial court found Williams’s juvenile history and
pending criminal charges in another county to be aggravating. His age –
eighteen – and his injuries from a recent automobile accident were found to be
mitigating circumstances. The trial court imposed twenty-year sentences, with
ten years suspended, for each of the Class B felony convictions. Williams
received a two-year sentence for his Class C felony conviction. All sentences
were to be served consecutively, providing for an aggregate sentence of forty-
two years, with twenty years suspended.
[7] On March 28, 2016, the trial court granted Williams’s request to pursue a
belated appeal.
Discussion and Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 25A03-1604-CR-905 | September 15, 2016 Page 3 of 8
Appropriateness of Sentence
[8] Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-5 provides that a person convicted of a Class B
felony faces a sentencing range of six to twenty years, with the advisory
sentence being ten years. Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-6 provides that a
person convicted of a Class C felony faces a sentencing range of two to eight
years, with four years as the advisory sentence. Williams received a maximum
term of years for his Class B felony convictions, but did not receive a maximum
sentence because ten years of each sentence were suspended. 4 He received a
minimum sentence for his Class C felony conviction.
[9] Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), this “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 performing our review, we assess “the
culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to
others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell v.
State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). The principal role of such review is
to attempt to leaven the outliers. Id. at 1225. A defendant ‘“must persuade the
appellate court that his or her sentence has met th[e] inappropriateness standard
4
A maximum sentence is a fully executed sentence of maximum length. Bratcher v. State, 999 N.E.2d 864,
871 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 25A03-1604-CR-905 | September 15, 2016 Page 4 of 8
of review.”’ Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007) (quoting
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)).
[10] As for the nature of the conspiracy offense, Williams and friends planned to
burn down a barn. Williams then set fire to the hay-filled barn, causing a total
loss of $334,122.00. He broke into the residence of someone he knew, and took
a shotgun from inside the residence. He agreed to assist police officers in a
controlled drug buy, but escaped out a back door while the officers were
waiting, potentially endangering the surveilling officers.
[11] As to the character of the offender, Williams was adjudicated delinquent for
possessing marijuana and stolen property. He was placed on probation, but
probation was unsuccessfully terminated due to Williams’s lack of compliance
with substance abuse treatment and anger management counseling. Shortly
after reaching the age of eighteen, Williams committed the instant crimes and
was charged in Warsaw County with the offenses of Possession of Marijuana
and Conversion. Williams admitted that, at his guilty plea hearing, he gave
perjured testimony when he claimed that he acted alone in committing the
burglary. His motive was to protect friends.
[12] Having reviewed the matter, we conclude that the trial court did not impose an
inappropriate sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B), and the sentence does not
warrant appellate revision. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the sentence
imposed by the trial court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 25A03-1604-CR-905 | September 15, 2016 Page 5 of 8
Conclusion
[13] The aggregate sentence imposed for Conspiracy to Commit Arson, Burglary,
and Escape is not inappropriate.
[14] Affirmed.
[15] Barnes, J., concurs.
Riley, J., dissents with separate opinion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 25A03-1604-CR-905 | September 15, 2016 Page 6 of 8
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Trevor Williams, Court of Appeals Case No.
25A03-1604-CR-905
Appellant-Defendant,
v.
State of Indiana,
Appellee-Plaintiff.
Riley, Judge dissenting
[16] I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to affirm Williams’s aggregate
sentence of forty-two years, with twenty years suspended. The record indicates
that the offenses occurred shortly after Williams’s eighteenth birthday. When
he was seventeen years old, Williams was involved in an automobile accident,
and sustained “serious brain injury” in addition to several broken bones.
(Appellant’s App. Vol.5, p.18). Williams testified that after the accident he
attended classes to “learn how to read and write and walk and run the way a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 25A03-1604-CR-905 | September 15, 2016 Page 7 of 8
normal person should.” (Transcript p. 42). He still suffers memory loss and is
in continuous pain. At the sentencing hearing, Williams expressed remorse and
admitted that he is “simply young, dumb, and easily influenced by [his]
friends.” (Tr. p. 43).
[17] Based on Williams’s young age, negative peer pressure, and the resulting
injuries from the car accident, I would conclude that the trial court’s sentence is
inappropriate pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) and would instruct the
trial court to run the sentences concurrently.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 25A03-1604-CR-905 | September 15, 2016 Page 8 of 8
Trevor Williams v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion