MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 22 2020, 8:43 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
Jeffrey W. Elftman Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Pauper Counsel Attorney General of Indiana
Kokomo, Indiana
Benjamin C. Wade
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Phillip Epperly, December 22, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-170
v. Appeal from the Tipton Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Thomas R. Lett,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
80C01-1505-F5-198
Weissmann, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-170 | December 22, 2020 Page 1 of 5
[2] Phillip Epperly argues he committed a typical reckless homicide, undeserving of
the maximum sentence. But he drove under the influence, totaled his car,
dragged his passenger’s lifeless body away from the wreckage, and attempted to
deflect blame onto her. Finding his six-year sentence is not inappropriate, we
affirm.
Facts
[3] Phillip Epperly downed four beers and popped two painkillers. Then he took
his girlfriend, Karla Wolford, for a drive. Sometime before midnight, Epperly
drove through a stop sign, lost control of his vehicle, and hit a tree in his own
front yard. Epperly then dragged an unresponsive Wolford into his home.
When police arrived, Wolford was lying on the floor, covered in blood. She was
pronounced dead at the scene. Epperly initially told police Wolford had been
driving, but he later admitted responsibility for the crash.
[4] Four years after Wolford’s death, Epperly pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony
reckless homicide. The trial court sentenced him to the statutory maximum, six
years in the Department of Corrections. Epperly now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Epperly argues the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to the
statutory maximum and that the sentence is inappropriate in light of his
character and the nature of the offense under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). We
address these arguments in turn.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-170 | December 22, 2020 Page 2 of 5
I. Abuse of Discretion
[6] Sentencing is a discretionary function of the trial court, which we review only
for an abuse of discretion. Anglemeyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007).
A trial court abuses its discretion if the decision is “clearly against the logic and
effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable,
probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Id. (quoting K.S. v.
State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind. 2006)). To facilitate our review of sentencing,
the trial court must detail its rationale. Id.
[7] Epperly argues the trial court abused its discretion by improperly counting an
element of the crime as an aggravator in imposing his sentence. See Gomillia v.
State, 13 N.E.3d 846, 852-53 (Ind. 2014) (holding that it is improper as a matter
of law to impose a sentence greater than the advisory sentence because of
material elements of the offense). According to Epperly, the court based its
finding that “a reduced or suspended sentence would depreciate the seriousness
of the crime” on Wolford’s death, which is an element of reckless homicide.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 78.
[8] Epperly paints the trial court’s order with too broad a brush. What makes his
crime exceptional is not that Wolford died but how it happened. Epperly
dragged Wolford’s lifeless body from the wreckage and briefly attempted to
blame her for her own death. The circumstances of the crime—not the resulting
death—are what render this reckless homicide particularly egregious. The trial
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-170 | December 22, 2020 Page 3 of 5
court did not use an element of the crime to aggravate Epperly’s sentence and
therefore we find no abuse of discretion.
II. Ind. App. R. 7(B)
[9] Next, Epperly challenges his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Even
when a trial court acts within its discretion in sentencing, independent appellate
review and revision is permitted. Anglemeyer, 868 N.E.2d at 491 (quoting
Childress, 848 N.E.2d 1073,1080 Ind. 2006)). 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.” Ind. App. R. 7(B). We conduct this review
with “substantial deference” to the trial court because the “principal role of
[our] review is to attempt to leaven the outliers, and not to achieve a perceived
correct sentence.” Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014) (quotations
and citations omitted).
[10] Epperly argues his commission of reckless homicide was not particularly
heinous and therefore undeserving of the maximum sentence. In doing so, he
disregards the tragic circumstances of Wolford’s death as detailed above. For
the reasons articulated in Part I of this opinion, we cannot find the trial court
erred in weighing of the nature of the offense.
[11] Epperly also argues the nature of his character supports a lighter sentence. He
points out that his prior convictions were ten and twenty years ago, and neither
resulted in injury to another person. But even a minor criminal history can
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-170 | December 22, 2020 Page 4 of 5
“speak poorly to [a defendant’s] character.” Quintanilla v. State, 146 N.E.3d 982,
989 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). Additionally, Epperly’s prior convictions were both
related to substance abuse, which he failed to address. He cites his history of
drug abuse as a mitigating factor without acknowledging his failure to seek help
for his addiction. A trial court does not abuse its discretion in considering drug
abuse, especially drug abuse that is allowed to continue unabated, to be an
aggravator at sentencing. See, e.g., Mehringer v. State, 152 N.E.3d 667, 676 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2020) (observing that treatment for alcohol abuse is not necessarily
evidence of good character if it was only sought after letting the problem “get
out of control”). Though Epperly contends his unresolved addiction should be
considered mitigating, his drug use and his failure to address his addiction
contributed to his girlfriend’s death. In light of these considerations, Epperly
has failed to persuade us he has a redeeming character demanding of sentencing
relief.
[12] As the trial court did not abuse its discretion or enter an inappropriate sentence,
the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-170 | December 22, 2020 Page 5 of 5