Gregory Dee Williams, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Gregory Dee Williams was convicted of Level 5 felony attempted robbery, Level 5 felony intimidation, and Level 6 felony possession of cocaine, for which he received an aggregate sentence of five years in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). Williams appeals his sentence, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to recognize certain mitigating factors. He also contends that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Deonte Sutton borrowed a pair of shoes from Williams for a job interview and did not return them. After Sutton ignored several calls and texts about the shoes, Williams became angry and developed a plan to force Sutton to return them. Part of that plan involved borrowing a gun from a friend.

[4] On the morning of July 22, 2023, Williams sent Sutton text messages warning that he was coming to retrieve his shoes. The last message, sent around 7:40 a.m., stated: “Im knocks on yo mf door an ni**a have my mf shoes cuz you a f**kn weirdo ass ni**a bitch ass cuz don't hit my mf phone ever again cuz[.]” Exhibits at 91.

[5] A couple hours later, Williams drove to the home of Christine Ball, Sutton's aunt. Williams hoped to confront Sutton in front of Ball, thinking Sutton would be more likely to turn over the shoes with her there. Ball answered the door, and when Williams asked for Sutton, Ball left the screen door locked, with Williams outside, and went to wake Sutton. Ball was unhappy that Sutton had told anyone that he was staying there, as she did not want any of his friends to visit. Ball did not know Williams.

[6] When she returned, Ball unlatched the screen door, and then Williams let himself in and angrily confronted Sutton about the shoes. Ball stepped between the two men and pleaded with Williams to leave, telling him that she would pay for the shoes if Sutton took them. Williams ignored Ball and continued to confront Sutton, who was backing further into the house. At some point, Williams pulled out the gun he brought and put it against Sutton's head as he threatened to kill Sutton and demanded the return of his shoes. Sutton stumbled over a chair, and Ball ran out the front door hysterically screaming about calling the police.

[7] Ball hid behind a bush in her front yard as she yelled for her neighbors to help and to call the police. Ball was terrified that Williams was going to shoot her or Sutton. With help from a neighbor, she eventually ran into the neighbor's house for cover.

[8] In the meantime, Williams had “fast paced walked” out of the house after Ball to tell her not to call the police and try to calm her down. Transcript Vol. I at 244. This gave Sutton time to obtain a gun from the nightstand in Ball's bedroom. Fearful for the safety of his aunt, Sutton then shot Williams once in the back of the leg, near his groin area. Williams then began walking down the street, and Sutton put the gun down and waited for police.

[9] A responding officer observed Williams “stumbling around” in the roadway near the scene. Id. at 95. Williams dropped his gun as the officer approached. After retrieving the weapon, the officer realized it was a BB gun that resembled a Glock firearm. During a subsequent search of Williams's vehicle, officers found small baggies of cocaine, a digital scale, and drug paraphernalia.

[10] Following a jury trial, Williams was convicted of Level 5 felony attempted robbery, Level 5 felony intimidation, and Level 6 felony possession of cocaine.¹ At the sentencing hearing on March 15, 2024, the trial court imposed five years for attempted robbery, five years for intimidation, and twenty-five months for possession of cocaine, all to be served concurrently in the DOC, for an aggregate term of five years. In sentencing Williams, the trial court noted in aggravation Williams's twenty-year criminal history, which included repeated violations of community placement, and the fact that he was on probation at the time of the instant offenses. The trial court also found no mitigating circumstances.

[11] Williams now appeals, challenging only the sentence imposed by the trial court. Additional information will be provided below as needed.

Discussion & Decision

1. Abuse of Discretion

[12] It is well established that sentencing decisions are within the sound discretion of the trial court. Owen v. State, 210 N.E.3d 256, 269 (Ind. 2023). Aside from our review and revise power discussed in the next section, we review a trial court's sentencing decision only for an abuse of discretion. Id. “An abuse of discretion occurs 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. (internal quotation marks omitted).

[13] One way in which a trial court may abuse its discretion is by omitting mitigating factors that are clearly supported by the record and advanced for consideration. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). It is not enough to show that the trial court failed to address the significance of a mitigating factor advanced by the defense, as a trial court is not obligated to explain why it has found the factor not to exist. Id. at 493. “An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating factor requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.” Id. (emphasis added).

[14] In support of his abuse of discretion argument, Williams asserts that the record “certainly supported” the presence of two mitigating factors – his “sincere and genuine remorse” and the undue hardship his enhanced sentence would cause for his family due to him being “the financial provider[.]” Appellant's Brief at 14. Williams's assertions are based solely on his own self-serving statements below, and he makes no argument on appeal as to how this mitigating evidence was significant. For example, he does not explain what special circumstances existed that would make the burden on his family undue. Benefield v. State, 904 N.E.2d 239, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“Many persons convicted of crimes have dependents and, absent special circumstances showing that the hardship to them is ‘undue,’ a trial court does not abuse its discretion by not finding this to be a mitigating factor.”), trans. denied. And he fails to recognize that his trial counsel did not advance remorse as a mitigating factor or that evaluation of remorse is “something better left to the trial court judge, who views and hears the defendant's apology and demeanor first-hand and who is, thus, better able to assess the defendant's credibility.” Hollins v. State, 145 N.E.3d 847, 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied. In sum, we conclude that Williams has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion when sentencing him.

2. Inappropriateness of Sentence

[15] Williams also requests that we independently review the appropriateness of his sentence under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B), which allows us to revise a sentence if “after due consideration of the trial court's decision” we find that “the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Id.; see also Hoak v. State, 113 N.E.3d 1209, 1209 (Ind. 2019) (“Even when a trial court imposes a sentence within its discretion, the Indiana Constitution authorizes independent appellate review and revision of this sentencing decision.”).

[16] Our principal task in this regard is “ ‘to attempt to leaven the outliers,’ not to achieve a ‘correct’ result in every case.” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1248 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008)). “And we generally defer to the sentence imposed unless a defendant presents ‘compelling evidence’ portraying the nature of the offense and their character in a positive light.” Id. (quoting Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015)). Thus, Williams bears the responsibility of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. See Robinson v. State, 91 N.E.3d 574, 577 (Ind. 2018).

[17] Williams was sentenced to a total of five years for two Level 5 felonies and one Level 6 felony. The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one to six years, with an advisory sentence of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b). The range for a Level 6 felony is six months to two and one-half years, with an advisory sentence of one year. I.C. § 35-50-2-7(b). The trial court imposed aggravated (though not maximum) sentences for each count but ran all three counts concurrently.

[18] On appeal, Williams argues that “he was not out to hurt anyone” and that he “took a BB gun in an all [sic] advised attempt to retrieve his own property that was stolen from him.” Appellant's Brief at 12. He also notes that no property damage was done and that he was the only one who sustained a physical injury during the incident. And he contends that he “expressed genuine remorse” and “showed great insight” at sentencing. Id. In sum, Williams argues that this is not a case that deserved an enhanced sentence, and he asks that we reduce his concurrent sentences to the advisory terms, for an aggregate sentence of three years in the DOC.

[19] At first blush, the nature and circumstances of his offenses do not appear particularly egregious. But it is notable that the State charged Williams with attempted robbery as a Level 5 felony, not a Level 3 felony for committing the crime while armed with a deadly weapon.² As a Level 5 felony, Williams's use of a gun therefore is an aggravating circumstance justifying an enhanced sentence. Moreover, by his own admission at trial, Williams intended to confront Sutton in front of Ball, who was an entirely innocent party. He then chose to brandish a gun despite Ball's frantic pleas for him to leave and her offer to pay for the shoes that her nephew allegedly took.

[20] Regarding his character, Williams makes no mention of his criminal history. The record establishes that Williams was thirty-eight years old at the time of sentencing and had amassed a twenty-year criminal history that spanned two states (California and then Indiana) and included five felony convictions and four misdemeanor convictions. His past crimes included several drug offenses and two crimes of violence. For each of his five prior convictions in Indiana, starting in 2016, Williams was given the opportunity of community-based supervision rather than incarceration. He violated the terms of his conditional release each time and was on probation for possession of cocaine when he committed the offenses in this case. Williams's extensive criminal history and squandering of prior opportunities for rehabilitation say much more about his character than his self-serving statements at sentencing of being remorseful and having a new perspective on life and sobriety.

[21] Williams has failed to present compelling evidence portraying the nature of his offenses or his character in a positive light. The five-year aggregate sentence imposed by the trial court is not inappropriate.

[22] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The jury found him not guilty of Level 2 felony burglary.

2.   Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1(a) provides:Except as provided in subsection (b), a person who knowingly or intentionally takes property from another person or from the presence of another person:(1) by using or threatening the use of force on any person; or(2) by putting any person in fear;commits robbery, a Level 5 felony. However, the offense is a Level 3 felony if it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon ․.“Although not a ‘firearm,’ a pellet or BB gun can be considered a ‘deadly weapon’ if, in the manner it is used, could ordinarily be used, or is intended to be used, it is readily capable of causing serious bodily injury.” Moore v. State, 137 N.E.3d 1034, 1037 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (citing Ind. Code § 35-31-5-2-86, which defines the term “deadly weapon”).

Altice, Chief Judge.

Judges Vaidik and Scheele concur. Vaidik, J. and Scheele, J., concur.