MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Nov 17 2017, 9:49 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark Small Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Christina D. Pace
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Paul E. Wilson, November 17, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
84A01-1703-CR-742
v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Michael Rader,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
84D05-1402-FD-338
84D05-1508-F5-1798
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1703-CR-742 | November 17, 2017 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary and Issue
[1] Following a guilty plea, Paul Wilson was convicted of resisting law
enforcement, a Class D felony; operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class A
misdemeanor; and failing to return to lawful detention, a Level 6 felony.
Williams was sentenced to an aggregate term of five and one-half years. He
now appeals, raising for our review the sole issue of whether his sentence is
inappropriate in light of his character and the nature of his offense. Concluding
his sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] While operating his vehicle, Wilson failed to obey a stop sign at an intersection.
After observing the traffic infraction, Officer Philip Ralston of the Terre Haute
Police Department activated his overhead lights and attempted to perform a
traffic stop. As Officer Ralston exited his vehicle, Wilson drove away at a high
rate of speed and turned onto a side street. Officer Ralston activated his siren
and engaged in a pursuit.
[3] Wilson turned sharply around a street corner, nearly hitting the vehicle of
another motorist. Wilson continued driving, entering a parking lot, crossing an
alleyway, and entering a yard before his path was blocked by a fence. Wilson
then exited his vehicle and fled on foot.
[4] At this time, several nearby citizens began chasing Wilson, eventually tackling
him to the ground. Wilson then removed a small handgun from his pocket,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1703-CR-742 | November 17, 2017 Page 2 of 8
pointed it at the civilians and warned them to back away. The police then
caught up to Wilson and placed him in handcuffs.
[5] While in police custody, Wilson initially identified himself by a false name and
appeared intoxicated due to his dilated pupils and erratic behavior. When
officers requested consent for a preliminary breath test, he refused. After
Wilson’s arrest, an inventory search of his vehicle revealed a stolen license plate
connected to another crime.
[6] The State charged Wilson with resisting law enforcement, a Class D felony;
receiving stolen property, a Class D felony; two counts of pointing a firearm at
another person, Class D felonies; operating a vehicle while intoxicated
endangering a person, a Class A misdemeanor; and operating while
intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor (“Cause 338”).1
[7] Wilson was transferred from the Vigo County Jail to the Vigo County
Community Corrections Work Release Program for pre-trial supervision. Soon
after this transfer, Wilson was granted permission to temporarily leave the
work-release facility and seek medical attention at Union Hospital. Wilson
failed to return to detention after treatment and absconded from the State of
Indiana. Wilson was later extradited from the State of Louisiana.
Consequently, Wilson was charged with failure to return to lawful detention, a
1
The incident precipitating these charges occurred in February 2014, prior to significant revisions to the
criminal code that became effective in July 2014.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1703-CR-742 | November 17, 2017 Page 3 of 8
Level 6 felony; and escape from lawful detention, a Level 5 felony (“Cause
1798”).
[8] Wilson pleaded guilty to resisting law enforcement and operating a vehicle
while intoxicated under Cause 338 and failure to return to lawful detention
under Cause 1798. The State dismissed the remaining charges.
[9] The trial court sentenced Wilson to three years for resisting law enforcement, to
be served concurrently with one year for operating a vehicle while intoxicated
in Cause 338. Wilson was also sentenced to two and one-half years for failing
to return to lawful detention in Cause 1798, to be served consecutively to the
sentence in Cause 338. Wilson’s aggregate sentence totals five and one-half
years. He now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
[10] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) 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.” The defendant bears the burden of
persuading the Court his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848
N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). When conducting this inquiry, the court may
consider any factors appearing in the record. Kemp v. State, 887 N.E.2d 102,
104-05 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans denied. Our analysis of the “nature of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1703-CR-742 | November 17, 2017 Page 4 of 8
offense” portion of the appropriateness review begins with the advisory
sentence. Clara v. State, 899 N.E.2d 733, 736 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Our review
of the “character of the offender” considers the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances. Id. When reviewing a sentence for appropriateness, the Court’s
determination will depend on “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).
II. Inappropriate Sentence
A. Nature of the Offense
[11] The advisory sentence is the starting point selected by the legislature as an
appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081.
Wilson was convicted of resisting law enforcement, a Class D felony, and
failing to return to lawful detention, a Level 6 felony. Indiana Code section 35-
50-2-7 states:
(a) A person who commits a Class D felony . . . shall be
imprisoned for a fixed term of between six (6) months and three
(3) years, with the advisory sentence being one and one-half years
(1 1/2) years.
(b) A person who commits a Level 6 felony . . . shall be
imprisoned for a fixed term of between six (6) months and two
and one-half (2 1/2) years, with the advisory sentence being one
(1) year.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1703-CR-742 | November 17, 2017 Page 5 of 8
Here, the trial court sentenced Wilson to the maximum sentence of three years
for the Class D felony resisting law enforcement conviction to be served
consecutively to the maximum two and one-half year sentence for the Level 6
failing to return to lawful detention conviction, for an aggregate sentence of five
and one-half years.2
[12] We conclude the nature of the offense supports the sentence imposed. Wilson
endangered the community by driving while intoxicated, leading the police on a
high-speed chase, and then aiming his handgun toward several citizens who
had tried to intercede until the police could arrive. He absconded from lawful
detention in the State of Indiana while awaiting trial and had to be extradited.
Further, Wilson gave a false name and possessed stolen property in his vehicle,
neither of which were pursued by the State in light of Wilson’s guilty plea.
[13] Although Wilson received the maximum sentence for each of his three
convictions, he mitigated his sentencing exposure by pleading guilty to a
fraction of the charges against him. Nothing about the nature of Wilson’s
offenses suggests his sentence is inappropriate.
B. Character of the Offender
[14] As to Wilson’s character, his criminal history includes four prior felony
convictions as an adult and three prior misdemeanors. Wilson has prior felony
2
Wilson was also convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor, which carries a
possible sentence of not more than one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2. He was sentenced to one year for that
conviction, to be served concurrently with the resisting law enforcement sentence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1703-CR-742 | November 17, 2017 Page 6 of 8
convictions for failing to return to lawful detention and prior misdemeanor
offenses for operating a vehicle while intoxicated and resisting law enforcement.
These prior convictions are directly relevant to his current convictions and
demonstrate Wilson is either unwilling or unable to abide by the law. See Harris
v. State, 897 N.E.2d 927, 930 (Ind. 2008) (noting the significance of a
defendant’s criminal history varies based upon the gravity, nature, and number
of prior offenses in relation to the current offense). Wilson’s history of
absconding from lawful detention warrants an executed sentence, as he has
abused the leniency extended to him in the past.
[15] Wilson does have a history of mental health and substance abuse issues, but it
was considered by the trial court in crafting his sentence. The trial court
recommended Wilson be placed in purposeful incarceration, specifically the
PLUS program,3 noting that program was not available in county facilities;
stated it would consider a sentence modification if Wilson successfully
completes the PLUS program; and recommended the Department of
Correction ensure Wilson continues to get his prescribed medications.
Nonetheless, Wilson’s criminal history and demonstrated disregard for the law
and the leniency he has previously been extended reflect poorly on his
character.
3
According to the Department of Correction website, the PLUS (“Purposeful Living Units Serve”) Program
is a faith and character-based re-entry program that “focuses on strengthening spiritual, moral, and character
development as well as life-skills.” https://www.in.gov/idoc/2356.htm (last visited October 30, 2017).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1703-CR-742 | November 17, 2017 Page 7 of 8
Conclusion
[16] Wilson has failed to meet his burden of persuading us that his five and one-half
year sentence at the Department of Correction is inappropriate in light of the
nature of his offense and his character. We therefore affirm his sentence.
[17] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1703-CR-742 | November 17, 2017 Page 8 of 8