Justin R. Weikel, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Justin Weikel, while unlawfully possessing a handgun and under the influence of illegal drugs, shot 14 rounds at law enforcement officers in a crowded mobile home park after a police chase through three counties. Following his conviction for attempted murder, Weikel appeals the 40-year sentence that was imposed, raising the following issue for our review: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him when it failed to identify remorse as a mitigating factor.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] At approximately 11:30 p.m. on April 21, 2021, Weikel—while driving under the influence of amphetamines and oxycodone—was stopped by a Fort Wayne Police Department officer for a traffic violation. At that time, Weikel was in possession of 10 Xanax bars and realized that he “was going to jail when they found what was in the car.” Tr. Vol. II at 77. Weikel panicked as the officer approached his vehicle, so he ingested all the Xanax as he sped away.

[4] Law enforcement officers from several police departments pursued Weikel through Allen, DeKalb, and Noble Counties. The 40-minute chase ended when Weikel struck stop sticks near a mobile home park in Noble County.

[5] When Weikel refused the officers’ verbal commands to surrender, they fired several beanbag rounds from a shotgun at Weikel's driver side window. As the officers approached Weikel's vehicle, he pointed a pistol and fired multiple shots toward them. At least one round struck a nearby residence, another hit the window of a law enforcement vehicle, and two bullets hit a sign that some officers were using as a shield. In response, officers fired approximately 20 live rounds at Weikel.

[6] Weikel was eventually taken into custody and transported to a hospital where he was treated for a “drug-induced medical condition.” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 26. A search of Weikel's vehicle revealed approximately 14 bullet casings, several boxes of live ammunition, a handgun containing a magazine and a chambered cartridge, and 13.37 grams of methamphetamine. In total, Weikel's apprehension and subsequent investigation of the incident involved the Indiana State Police and five county and city police departments.

[7] The State charged Weikel with attempted murder as a Level 1 felony,¹ attempted aggravated battery as a Level 3 felony,² possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon as a Level 4 felony,³ possession of a narcotic drug as a Level 4 felony,⁴ and resisting law enforcement as a Level 6 felony ⁵ . Pursuant to a plea agreement, Weikel pled guilty to attempted murder as a Level 1 felony in exchange for the dismissal of all remaining counts and drug-related offenses in a different cause. The parties further agreed that Weikel's sentence would be left to the trial court's discretion but that the executed portion of the sentence would not exceed 35 years.

[8] At Weikel's sentencing hearing, four law enforcement officers testified about the negative effects that the chase and shooting had on their lives and their families as well as the dangers of the vehicle pursuit and gunfire that occurred in a residential area. Sergeant Justin Beall of the Kendallville Police Department explained he had become familiar with Weikel over the past eight years and that on one occasion, he responded to a call where Weikel had overdosed in a motel bathtub and had to be revived with Narcan. Sergeant Beall further testified that only days before the April 21, 2021, chase and shooting, he arrested Weikel for possession of methamphetamine.

[9] Weikel testified at the sentencing hearing, apologized for his actions, and stated that he could not recall much about the offense because he was under the influence of “mind-altering drugs.” Tr. Vol. II at 77. Weikel denied trying to hurt the officers when he was fleeing and shooting at them; instead, he claimed that he only acted recklessly when he fired his weapon into the air because he was trying to get law enforcement officers to “duck.” Id. at 78. Weikel further testified that he was “not the type of person that tries to murder people” and “drugs can change people which is why I ․ can't ever put myself in this situation again.” Id. at 80.

[10] The trial court found portions of Weikel's statements contrary to the physical evidence and considered Weikel's presentence investigation (“PSI”) report, that demonstrated a criminal history that spanned nearly 25 years. Specifically, Weikel was adjudicated a delinquent for misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and as an adult, he amassed 13 misdemeanor convictions for multiple drug and alcohol offenses, battery, and unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle. Weikel also has six prior felony convictions that include burglary, receiving stolen property, and alcohol and drug-related offenses. It was also established that Weikel committed the instant offense while he was on pretrial release in a 2021 case for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, alcohol and drug offenses, leaving the scene of an accident, and possession of marijuana. The PSI report further revealed that Weikel's probation had been revoked eight times, and he was terminated from community corrections programs on three occasions.

[11] In considering what sentence to impose, the trial court identified the following aggravating circumstances: (1) Weikel's significant criminal history; (2) the 40-minute vehicle pursuit through three counties; (3) Weikel's illegal possession of a firearm and shooting at least 14 rounds at law enforcement officers; (4) the presence of drugs in Weikel's vehicle; (5) the offense occurred in a crowded mobile home park; (6) Weikel's failed opportunities at probation; and (7) Weikel's prior unsuccessful attempts to address his substance abuse issues. The trial court considered Weikel's decision to plead guilty as the sole mitigating factor and determined the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors. The trial court sentenced Weikel to 40 years, with 35 years executed at the Indiana Department of Correction and 5 years suspended to probation. Weikel now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Declining to Identify Weikel's Alleged Remorse as a Mitigating Factor

[12] Weikel contends that the trial court abused its discretion by not identifying his expression of remorse as a mitigating factor. Thus, Weikel maintains that we must remand this cause for resentencing. Our Supreme Court has explained the standard of review for such a claim as follows:

We review a sentencing court's decision about whether to find a mitigating factor for an abuse of discretion. Carter v. State, 711 N.E.2d 835, 838–39 (Ind. 1999). “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. at 838. Sentencing courts are “under no duty to deem mitigating every factor” advanced “simply because it [was] supported by some evidence in the record.” Bivins v. State, 642 N.E.2d 928, 952 (Ind. 1994). And “the sentencing judge is not obligated to explain why [they have] chosen not to make a finding of mitigation ․ Moreover, the [sentencing] court is not obligated to credit or weigh the defendant's evidence of mitigating circumstances the same way the defendant does.” Id. (quotations omitted).

Russell v. State, 234 N.E.3d 829, 847–48 (Ind. 2024) (alterations in original).

[13] Additionally, “substantial deference must be given to a trial court's evaluation of remorse.” Corralez v. State, 815 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). The trial court, which can “directly observe the defendant and listen to the tenor of his or her voice, is in the best position to determine whether the remorse is genuine.” Snyder v. State, 176 N.E.3d 995, 998 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Corralez, 815 N.E.2d at 1025).

[14] Here, although Weikel apologized for his actions, he did not acknowledge the gravity of his conduct or how he jeopardized the safety of the law enforcement officers, the community, and the mobile home park residents. Instead, Weikel denied that he tried to injure law enforcement officers, claiming that he only acted recklessly and was “trying to get officers[ ] to duck” his gunfire so he could escape. Tr. Vol. II at 79. Weikel also attributed his conduct to his illegal drug use.

[15] While Weikel may have regretted his actions, it was reasonable for the trial court to reject his claim of remorse as a mitigating circumstance when he merely described the episode as one that was influenced by mind-altering drugs. See, e.g., Price v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1245, 1253 (Ind. 2002) (defendant's statement that he was “very sorry about what happened” was insufficient to justify concluding that the trial court's failure to identify remorse as a mitigating factor was an abuse of discretion because the defendant failed to demonstrate full acceptance of responsibility). Weikel's apology and explanation about the offense avoids admission of responsibility and casts doubt on his genuine remorse. In short, Weikel has failed to show that his alleged mitigator is supported by the evidence.

[16] In sum, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not identifying Weikel's remorse as a mitigating factor. We therefore affirm the trial court.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code §§ 35-41-5-1(a), 35-42-1-1(1).

2.   I.C. §§ 35-41-5-1(a), 35-42-2-1.5.

3.   I.C. § 35-47-4-5 (effective July 1, 2020, to June 30, 2023).

4.   I.C. § 35-48-4-6(c)(1).

5.   I.C. § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3), (c)(1)(A) (effective Apr. 26, 2021, to June 30, 2021).

Felix, Judge.

Judges Pyle and Weissmann concur. Pyle, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.