MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 15 2020, 8:58 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jared M. Thomas Curtis T. Hill
Evansville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Samuel J. Dayton
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Andrew Michael Wilke- September 15, 2020
Breightling, Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellant-Defendant, 19A-CR-1267
Appeal from the Vanderburgh
v. Circuit Court
The Honorable David D. Kiely,
State of Indiana, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No.
82C01-1808-F4-5613
Darden, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1267 | September 15, 2020 Page 1 of 12
Statement of the Case
[1] Andrew Michael Wilke-Breightling (“Wilke-Breightling”) pleaded guilty to one
1 2
count of burglary, a Level 4 felony; one count of auto theft, a Level 5 felony;
3
one count of theft of a firearm, a Level 6 felony; and one count of theft of
4
property valued at between $750 to $50,000, a Level 6 felony. He now appeals
after his guilty plea and sentencing, contending that his sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and the character of the
offender. We affirm.
Issue
[2] The sole issue presented for our review is whether Wilke-Breightling’s sentence
is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and the character of the
5
offender.
1
Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1 (2014).
2
Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(2)(C)(i) (2019).
3
Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(1)(B)(i) (2019).
4
Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(1)(A) (2019).
5
Wilke-Breightling appears to advance an argument that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing by
improperly weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors. We address that argument at the end of our
analysis.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1267 | September 15, 2020 Page 2 of 12
Facts and Procedural History
6
[3] Prior to leaving town for a short visit, Steven C. Hairston (“Hairston”) left the
keys to his truck with his neighbor, Linda Wilke (“Linda”). Hairston asked
Wilke-Breightling, Linda’s then thirty-year-old grandson, to move the truck
from the street and into Hairston’s yard because it was not properly registered.
Hairston also paid Linda to have Wilke-Breightling mow his lawn while he was
away.
[4] When Hairston returned to Evansville, he was notified by Vanderburgh County
Animal Control that his dog was in their shelter. Hairston found this to be odd
because a friend was supposed to be caring for his dog while he was out of
town. On August 16, 2018, when Hairston went to his home, he discovered
that his truck was missing, the back door of his home was open, and the interior
of his home was ransacked. He observed that items of personal property were
missing, such as three flatscreen televisions, several firearms including a Glock
22, a Mossberg 715T rifle, and a Hi-Point .45 caliber carbine.
[5] Hairston, secretly recorded a conversation on his cell phone, when he went to
Linda’s house to ask her about the theft. Initially, Linda told him that she did
not know anything about the theft and that she had not seen Wilke-Breightling
recently. Hairston then told Linda that he was going to call the police. At that
6
We refer to the victim’s name as it appears in the probable cause affidavit.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1267 | September 15, 2020 Page 3 of 12
point, she told Hairston that he could have his property back if he did not call
the police.
[6] When Hairston entered Linda’s house, he immediately recognized several items
of his personal property inside. They included his rifle scope, his gun
magazine, and his flat screen television. Upon seeing the items, Hairston called
911.
[7] Detective M. Evans of the Evansville Police Department was one of the officers
who responded to the 911 call. He interviewed both Linda and Hairston.
Hairston relayed the facts as stated above to Detective Evans and agreed to
forward the recording of the conversation he had with Linda to him. Although
he could not immediately produce the serial numbers for his firearms, Hairston
said he would search for them in his records and would provide the information
later, if found. The items found in Linda’s home were subsequently returned to
Hairston.
[8] Linda, who had been mirandized prior to Detective Evans’ arrival, told him
that there were items of personal property that belonged to Hairston inside her
home, but that she did not see Wilke-Breightling bring them into her home.
When asked if Wilke-Breightling lived there with her, Linda disclosed that he
had not lived there for some time, although he had previously lived there with
her. She stated that he did not really have a home but that he had stayed with
her the previous night.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1267 | September 15, 2020 Page 4 of 12
[9] Linda consented to a search of her home and the items mentioned above were
found in the only bedroom in the home. Linda later acknowledged that she
knew the television was from Hairston’s home. She said that when she asked
Wilke-Breightling about the items of personal property, he said that Hairston’s
home had been abandoned.
[10] A crime scene detective processed and photographed the home and the items of
personal property, which were returned to Hairston.
[11] Wilke-Breightling was not present at the scene when the officers arrived;
however, Linda gave them an address where she had last seen him. She also
told the officers that two other individuals had stayed at her home during the
period of time that Hairston was out of town. Linda did not know whether
Wilke-Breightling was still in possession of Hairston’s truck or what he had
done with it.
[12] On August 17, 2018, the State charged Wilke-Breightling with burglary, auto
theft, theft of a firearm, and theft of property valued at between $750 to
$50,000. On March 29, 2019, Wilke-Breightling indicated on the record that he
intended to plead guilty without a sentencing recommendation by the State.
Wilke-Breightling’s sentencing hearing was held on May 6, 2019. The trial
court imposed the following sentence: eight years for his burglary conviction;
five years for auto theft; two years for theft of a firearm; and, two years for theft
of property valued at $750 and $50,000, with each of the sentences to be served
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1267 | September 15, 2020 Page 5 of 12
concurrently; and, concurrently with an unrelated sentence under a separate
cause number.
Discussion and Decision
[13] Wilke-Breightling contends that his sentences are inappropriate in light of the
nature of his offenses and his character. Pursuant to 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 [c]ourt finds that the
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character
of the offender.” Our Supreme Court has explained that the principal role of
appellate review should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, “not to achieve a
perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225
(Ind. 2008). We independently examine the nature of Wilke-Breightling’s
offenses and his character under Appellate Rule 7(B) with substantial deference
to the sentence imposed by the trial court. See Satterfield v. State, 33 N.E.3d 344,
355 (Ind. 2015). “Such deference should prevail unless overcome by
compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such
as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant’s
character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good
character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).
[14] “In conducting our review, we do not look to see whether the defendant’s
sentence is appropriate or if another sentence might be more appropriate;
rather, the test is whether the sentence is ‘inappropriate.’” Barker v. State, 994
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1267 | September 15, 2020 Page 6 of 12
N.E.2d 306, 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. Whether a sentence is
inappropriate ultimately depends upon “the culpability of the defendant, the
severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad other factors
that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224. Wilke-
Breightling bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate.
See id.
[15] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, the advisory sentence is
the starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the
crime committed. Kunberger v. State, 46 N.E.3d 966, 973 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015);
Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans denied. Here,
Wilke-Breightling was convicted of Level 4 felony burglary. The sentencing
range for a Level 4 felony is a fixed term of between two (2) and twelve (12)
years, with the advisory sentence being six (6) years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5
(2014). Wilke-Breightling received a sentence of eight years. He was also
convicted of Level 5 felony auto theft with a sentencing range of a fixed term of
between two (2) and eight (8) years, with the advisory sentence being four (4)
years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 (2014). He received a sentence of five years for
this offense. Wilke-Breightling received a two-year sentence for his Level 6
felony theft of a firearm conviction. The sentencing range for that offense is a
fixed term of between six (6) months and three (3) years, with the advisory
sentence being one and one-half (1½) years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7 (2016).
Wilke-Breightling received a two-year sentence for his conviction of Level 6
felony theft of property valued at between $750 to $50,000. The sentencing
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1267 | September 15, 2020 Page 7 of 12
range for that offense is a fixed term of between six (6) months and three (3)
years, with the advisory sentence being one and one-half (1½) years. Id. The
trial court imposed sentences that were slightly above the advisory sentence or
starting point for each offense.
[16] We first turn to Wilke-Breightling’s character to determine whether such
supports a downward revision of his sentence. The record reveals no
substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character, but, instead,
reveals a significant long-term criminal history. When considering a
defendant’s character for purposes of Appellate Rule 7(B) analysis, a
defendant’s criminal history is one factor. Garcia v. State, 47 N.E.3d 1249, 1251
(Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. The significance of criminal history varies
based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the
current offense. Id.
[17] We also note that, “[a] record of arrest, without more, does not establish the
historical fact that a defendant committed a criminal offense and may not be
properly considered as evidence of criminal history.” Cotto v. State, 829 N.E.2d
520, 526 (Ind. 2005) (citing Scheckel v. State, 620 N.E.2d 681, 683 (Ind. 1993)).
“However, a record of arrest, particularly a lengthy one, may reveal that a
defendant has not been deterred even after having been subject to the police
authority of the State.” Id. “Such information may be relevant to the trial
court’s assessment of the defendant’s character in terms of the risk that he will
commit another crime.” Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1267 | September 15, 2020 Page 8 of 12
[18] In 2007, Wilke-Breightling was convicted of possession or use of marijuana in
Maricopa County, Arizona, and was sentenced to three years on probation.
However, because of a probation violation, seventy-five days of probation were
revoked. Also, in 2007, Wilke-Breightling was convicted of unlawful use of a
means of transportation in Maricopa County, Arizona and was sentenced to
three years of probation. One year of that probation was revoked due to a
probation violation. In 2011, he was convicted of a narcotic drug violation in
Maricopa County, Arizona and was sentenced to probation. The presentence
investigation report (“PSI”) does not indicate the length of probation.
[19] In 2017, Wilke-Breightling was charged with auto theft and driving without
ever receiving a license, but those charges were dismissed. In 2018, he was
charged with driving while suspended and that case was pending when the
PSI was prepared for the instant case. The State has requested and we have
taken judicial notice of the fact that Wilke-Breightling pleaded guilty to Class A
misdemeanor driving while suspended. We also take notice of the fact that
Wilke-Breightling, on an unrelated charge in 2019, was convicted of Level 6
felony resisting law enforcement and Class C misdemeanor reckless driving.
He received an aggregate sentence of two years for those offenses to be served
concurrently with the sentences in the instant case.
[20] Further indicative of his penchant for illegal activity is his long history of
substance abuse. The PSI reflects that Wilke-Breightling first consumed alcohol
at the age of nine and began drinking alcohol on a daily basis at the age of
thirteen. Between the ages of eighteen and twenty-eight, he drank a fifth of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1267 | September 15, 2020 Page 9 of 12
alcohol daily. Wilke-Breightling also began using marijuana at the age of nine
and has continued to use “a couple of grams” daily since. Appellant’s App.
Vol. II, p. 59. He began using methamphetamine at the age of thirteen and
continued to use approximately one gram daily since then. At the age of
twenty-one, he began using two to six ten-milligram pills of Oxycodone daily.
When he was twenty-eight years old, he began using two milligrams of Xanax
once or twice daily.
[21] Next, we observe that “‘the offender risk assessment scores do not in themselves
constitute, and cannot serve as, an aggravating or mitigating circumstance.’”
Kayser v. State, 131 N.E.3d 717, 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting J.S. v. State,
928 N.E.2d 576, 578 (Ind. 2010)). “Our Indiana Supreme Court has explained
that scores on a risk assessment instrument ‘are not intended to serve as
aggravating or mitigating circumstances nor to determine the gross length of
sentence[.]’” Id. (quoting Malenchik v. State, 928 N.E.2d 564, 575 (Ind. 2010)
(emphasis added)). “Instead, these ‘offender assessment instruments are
appropriate supplemental tools for judicial consideration at sentencing’ and can
be used by the trial court ‘in formulating the manner in which a sentence is to
be served.’” Id. Here, Wilke-Breightling’s scores were such that he is not a
good candidate for probation as he is likely to reoffend. In the past, several
times when given the opportunity to serve sentences while on probation, he
violated the terms and conditions of his probation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1267 | September 15, 2020 Page 10 of 12
[22] The nature of the offense analysis compares the defendant’s actions with the
required showing to sustain a conviction under the charged offense. Cardwell,
895 N.E.2d at 1224. We now turn to the nature of Wilke-Breightling’s offenses.
[23] Wilke-Breightling was in a position of trust with Hairston. Hairston paid Linda
for Wilke-Breightling to mow the lawn in Hairston’s absence. Hairston also
gave the keys to his truck to Linda and asked Wilke-Breightling to move the
truck off the street for him. Instead, Wilke-Breightling took advantage of the
situation, broke into Hairston’s home, stole items of personal property from the
home, including Hairston’s truck. He then brought and stored the stolen items
of personal property inside his grandmother, Linda’s home. He deceived her
regarding how he obtained possession of the stolen property, which potentially
exposed her to criminal liability as an accomplice in the crimes in her effort to
protect him.
[24] Each of the sentences imposed were only slightly enhanced above the advisory
sentence and were ordered to be served concurrently. We find nothing in the
nature of the offenses and the character of the offender to warrant a downward
revision of his sentence.
[25] Wilke-Breightling appears to suggest that the trial court abused its discretion by
failing to properly weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors. In particular,
he observes that the trial court failed to note that his criminal history included
offenses linked to his substance abuse and suggests that the trial court gave little
to no weight to his guilty plea.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1267 | September 15, 2020 Page 11 of 12
[26] To the extent Wilke-Breightling asserts that the trial court abused its discretion
in the weight it gave to the aggravating circumstance of his criminal history and
the mitigating circumstance of his guilty plea, his assertion is not well taken.
“A sentencing court cannot abuse its discretion by failing to properly weigh
aggravating and mitigating factors.” Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 843 n.1
(Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (citing Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind.
2007)).
[27] Nevertheless, Wilke-Breightling faced four felony charges in the instant case
and received concurrent sentences, slightly above the advisory sentence, to run
concurrently to other unrelated criminal offenses. He has not been deterred
from criminal activity since he began consuming alcohol and drugs at an early
age. He has a long and extensive criminal history with numerous attempts at
rehabilitation and probation violations. We find nothing in the record to suggest
that the trial court’s analysis was incorrect.
Conclusion
[28] Wilke-Breightling’s sentences are not inappropriate in light of the nature of his
offenses and his character.
[29] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1267 | September 15, 2020 Page 12 of 12