MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 27 2017, 9:33 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn, Indiana
Michael Gene Worden
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
John Paul Woolley, July 27, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
83A01-1612-CR-2881
v. Appeal from the Vermillion Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Bruce V. Stengel,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
83C01-1510-F3-5
Mathias, Judge.
[1] John Paul Woolley (“Woolley”) pleaded guilty in Vermillion Circuit Court to
four counts of Level 3 felony child neglect. The trial court ordered Woolley to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 83A01-1612-CR-2881 | July 27, 2017 Page 1 of 9
serve four consecutive terms of sixteen years, for an aggregate maximum
sentence totaling sixty-four years. Woolley appeals his sentence and argues that
it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender.
[2] Concluding that the horrifying nature of the offense and the atrocious neglect
suffered by Woolley’s four children demonstrates his appalling character, we
affirm Woolley’s sixty-four-year sentence.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Woolley and his wife Danielle have four children, J.W., C.W., S.W., and A.W.
In October 2015, the children were eight, five, four, and two years old,
respectively. The Woolley’s parents and his brother also resided in the same
home. On October 19, 2015, the Vermillion County Office of the Department
of Child Services (“DCS”) investigated a report involving the Woolley children.
Two DCS workers and a police officer discovered the children locked in squalid
bedrooms on the second floor of the Woolleys’ house.
[4] When DCS and the officers arrived at the house, J.W., the eight-year-old child,
was locked alone in his room, and he was naked. His hands and feet were
covered in feces, and fecal matter was caked under his fingernails. He did not
speak, and he sucked on his hands. The windows in J.W.’s room were boarded
up, and there was no air conditioning in his room. The floor, walls, and ceiling
of J.W.’s bedroom were smeared or spattered with fecal matter. The floor of
J.W.'s room was completely covered in fecal matter that had been worn smooth
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 83A01-1612-CR-2881 | July 27, 2017 Page 2 of 9
by people walking on it. The room was furnished only with a wooden bed
frame, but no mattress. J.W. covered himself with a pile of rags or blankets,
which were also covered in feces. J.W.’s room also contained a cup, bowl, and
paper plates, all of which were crusted with fecal matter.
[5] Five-year-old C.W. was also naked, filthy, and locked alone in a room. C.W.
screamed and did not want to be touched when Woolley picked her up to dress
her. C.W. was emaciated. Four-year-old S.W. was also so thin his bones were
clearly visible. S.W. and twenty-month-old A.W. were confined to cribs in the
Woolleys’ master bedroom. They, too, were soiled with feces.
[6] All four of the children had lice and/or fleas and their bodies were covered in
bug bites. The children were non-verbal, and did not appear to recognize their
names. The children were not toilet trained. J.W. was the only child who could
eat solid food; the others did not know how to chew or swallow solids and ate
only baby food. The children did not appear to recognize each other. Following
their removal, all four children were admitted to Riley Hospital for Children in
Indianapolis for treatment.
[7] At Riley Hospital, the children were diagnosed with either basic developmental
delays or significant developmental delays. Eight-year-old J.W., for example,
was found to be at a young toddler’s age developmentally. The four Woolley
children were also diagnosed with lack of medical care and feeding dysfunction
or problems. C.W., S.W., and A.W. were diagnosed with failure to thrive
and/or signs of malnutrition. C.W. and A.W. were diagnosed with abnormal
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 83A01-1612-CR-2881 | July 27, 2017 Page 3 of 9
or poor dentation. The children’s guardian ad litem stated in her victim impact
statement that, “The impact of the crimes and abuse of these parents is
impossible to put into words.” Confidential App. p. 127.
[8] The police officers who searched the Woolleys’ home after the children were
removed described the condition of the home in their affidavits for probable
cause. One stated that the odor inside the residence “took his breath away.”
Appellant’s App. p. 22. Another stated, “The smell was so over whelming [sic]
that you could not stay very long in the home before your eyes and nose began
to burn and made you sick.” Id. The crime scene investigator needed to wear a
respirator inside the house. Shortly after the children were removed, the house
was condemned.
[9] While the children were confined to upstairs bedrooms, Woolley and his wife
frequently sat in the backyard by the home’s pool. The children had not been
outside the home for at least one year. More than one neighbor did not know
that children lived in the home.
[10] The State charged Woolley with four counts of Level 3 felony neglect of a
dependent resulting in serious bodily injury.1 On March 16, 2016, without the
1
The children’s mother and paternal grandparents were also charged with four counts of neglect of a
dependent. Danielle Woolley, their mother, received an aggregate sixty-four-year sentence. Her sentence was
affirmed on appeal. See Danielle E. Woolley v. State, 2017 WL 1493007, No. 83A04-1608-CR-1765 (Ind. Ct.
App. April 26, 2017) (“The nature of these offenses is nothing short of heinous. Woolley’s sixty-four-year
sentence is not inappropriate.”). The children’s paternal grandmother, Barbara Jo Woolley was ordered to
serve an aggregate forty-three-year sentence. On appeal, she appealed the trial court’s consideration of her
profession, that she was a licensed practical nurse, as an aggravating factor. We determined that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in its consideration of that factor and concluded that “it is even more
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 83A01-1612-CR-2881 | July 27, 2017 Page 4 of 9
benefit of a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to all four charged offenses. On
November 18, 2016, the trial court sentenced Woolley to sixteen years for each
conviction and ordered him to serve his sentence consecutively. Woolley’s
aggregate sentence is sixty-four years. Woolley now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[11] Woolley argues that his sixty-four-year sentence is inappropriate under Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B). The rule provides that “[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.”
[12] In conducting our review, “[w]e do not look to determine if the sentence was
appropriate; instead we look to make sure the sentence was not inappropriate.”
Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). “[S]entencing is principally a
discretionary function in which the trial court’s judgment should receive
considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008).
“Such deference should prevail unless overcome by compelling evidence
egregious when a nurse – a person trained in an occupation that focuses solely on the health and well-being
of other people – takes no action to help her four obviously suffering grandchildren.” See Barbara Jo Woolley v.
State, 2017 WL 2291343, No. 83A05-1612-CR-2765 (Ind. Ct. App. May 25, 2017). The children’s paternal
grandfather, Gordon Woolley, was ordered to serve a thirty-six-year sentence. See Tribune Star website,
http://www.tribstar.com/news/local_news/child-neglect-yields--year-prison-term/article_19e00b6d-cce8-
559d-8fb5-a046858dca52.html, last visited on July 12, 2007. Because Vermillion County does not use the
Odyssey case management system, this court could not obtain the actual sentencing order from
mycase.in.gov. Woolley’s brother, Mike, the other adult living in the house, suffers from autism and is
disabled. He was not charged with neglecting the children.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 83A01-1612-CR-2881 | July 27, 2017 Page 5 of 9
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). Ultimately, our principal role is to
leaven the outliers rather than necessarily achieve what is perceived as the
correct result. Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225. Woolley bears the burden to
establish that his sentence is inappropriate. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867,
873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
[13] When considering the nature of the offense, we observe that “the advisory
sentence is the starting point the Legislature selected as appropriate for the
crime committed.” Pierce v. State, 949 N.E.2d 349, 352 (Ind. 2011). The
advisory sentence for a level 3 felony is nine years, with a sentencing range of
three to sixteen years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5(b). Woolley’s aggregate sixty-four-
year sentence is the maximum sentence possible for his crimes.2
[14] Concerning the character of the offender, Woolley does not have a prior
criminal history, and he pleaded guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement.
Woolley is also physically disabled and has suffered from rheumatoid arthritis
for most of his life. However, his disability did not prevent Woolley from
2
We can all take pride in the fact that Indiana observes and promotes the rule of law. However, in this
instance, we would not shrink, and it is clear that the trial judge would not shrink, from imposing a much
harsher sentence were it available.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 83A01-1612-CR-2881 | July 27, 2017 Page 6 of 9
normal, everyday physical activity. Most importantly, the heinous and
protracted nature of his offenses are abjectly poor reflections on his character.
[15] In its sentencing statement, the trial court described the living conditions of the
home and the children’s suffering:
Some people could smell the odor of urine and feces before they
got on the steps or the threshold of the house. Some people could
smell it outside the house and then other people smelled the odor
of urine and feces after they entered the house. The people who .
. . went through the house . . . wore coverings over their shoes.
They wore gloves and the CSI detective goes in and . . . he’s
overwhelmed by the smell and has to stop and get a respirator so
he can continue his investigation. Now let’s remember that the
children are subject to this smell on a daily basis. This horrible
smell of urine and feces. . . . The stairway upstairs contained
what appeared to be cat feces on the steps. [Sergeant Jim Cody]
also observed and photographed different types of locks on the
upstairs bedroom. These locks were installed so the operator
from the exterior side of the odor rather than the interior side
which would prevent a person from exiting these bedrooms. The
northeast bedroom appeared to be the master bedroom. It had a
queen size bed, a TV, a refrigerator, dressers, air conditioning,
carpet remnant and two kids. Now that’s where John and
Danielle Woolley lived. . . The two cribs . . . [A.W.] and [S.W.]
stayed in these cribs. We call them cribs but they were confined
to these two cribs. These were actually a cage for these two
children. . . [A.W.] and [S.W.] do not recognize each other. They
are two boys. They were housed there together in the same room
but they do not recognize each other because these were not
cribs, these were cages that these boys were kept in. The
southeast bedroom was the worst of all. This was [J.W.’s] room
and this is the state police reporting, “The room had exposed
hardwood floors. They were covered in human feces. It appeared
that fecal matter had been there so long that it was smooth from
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 83A01-1612-CR-2881 | July 27, 2017 Page 7 of 9
being walked over all the time.” He observed feces smeared on
the four walls and a door. . . . The ceiling had feces stuck to it as
if it had been thrown there. Several large chunks and pieces were
visible and appeared to be hanging. . . . [T]he two windows are
covered by plywood and on the picture you could see that not
only are they covered by plywood, they duct taped the edges of
the plywood and [J.W.] was locked in that room. He could not
get out. There were no toys. Apparently [J.W.’s] only toys was
[sic] a sippy cup and his own feces. . . . He was not potty trained.
. . . It’s also easy to imagine that . . . [in the summer]
temperatures reached 110, 115, 120 in that room covered with
feces. How could he survive the temperature, the feces smell, no
air moving? You know, you just can’t describe the cruelty. . . .
[T]he kids hadn’t gone to doctors. They had no vaccinations. . . .
The kids can’t speak. They are not potty trained. Only [J.W.] is
able to eat a little bit of solid food. . . . They still to this day, a
year away, they can’t do solid foods. They can’t drink through a
straw. They don’t know how to chew solid foods and swallow. . .
. A neighbor says . . . [he[ never saw children outside, never
knew there were children in the home. . . . Although the
neighbor said . . . he saw John and Danielle . . . frequently in the
backyard lounging in the pool.
Tr. pp. 82-85.
[16] The children suffered physically, psychiatrically, cognitively, medically, and
socially. The children were all diagnosed as failure to thrive. They were covered
in bug bites and fecal matter. They could only scream, moan and make clicking
sounds. J.W. has been placed in a residential program, and, according to his
medical records, may require life-long care in an assisted living facility. The
guardian ad litem reported that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 83A01-1612-CR-2881 | July 27, 2017 Page 8 of 9
All the children suffer from health issues along with the
indescribable mental and functional impairments they have. As a
mother, I cannot imagine how these parents could subject these
children to this life. I keep thinking to myself that the parents had
to consciously decide not to provide even the barest of necessities
for these children as all four adults in the home were functioning
adults. How can you go to work, go to school, care for yourself,
but decide to lock your children in a room? . . . These children
never saw the sunshine, the grass, felt the snow, experienced the
warmth of loving arms. Instead they were kept in rooms and
cribs like caged animals. . . . The children didn’t even have the
consolation of each other. None experienced any recognition of
their siblings. They were deprived of food, health care, love and
stimulation. They don’t even cry when upset, likely because it . . .
never elicited a response so why bother[.]
Confidential Appellant’s App. p. 127. The trial court summarized Woolley’s
offenses as the “brutal, callous and lifelong torture of the children,” which were
“so heinous and horrific in nature to be . . .beyond description nor
understanding.” Tr. pp. 88-89.
[17] Woolley was unimaginably and horrifically cruel to his four young children.
Woolley’s sixty-four-year sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of
the offense and the character of the offender.
[18] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 83A01-1612-CR-2881 | July 27, 2017 Page 9 of 9
John Paul Woolley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion