WILSON v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Robert Antonio Wilson, Jr., appeals his twelve-year sentence for Level 5 felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a public-safety official and being a habitual offender. Because Wilson has failed to persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In November 2021, Wilson was an inmate at Plainfield Correctional Facility. On November 28, he was being investigated for a fight. When correctional officers tried to put Wilson in handcuffs, he resisted and eventually struck one of the officers in the face. The officer fell to the ground, where Wilson continued hitting him. The officer sustained a broken nose, which required surgery, and a concussion.

[3] The State charged Wilson with Level 5 felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a public-safety official. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 26; Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1), (g)(5)(A). The State also alleged Wilson is a habitual offender. At the jury trial, a video of the incident was played for the jury. In addition, Wilson testified that he was upset about the situation because he didn't believe he did anything wrong, he resisted being handcuffed because his hand was “broken” from an earlier incident, and he “act[ed] in self-defense to protect [himself].” Tr. Vol. II p. 223; Tr. Vol. III p. 4. The jury, which was instructed on self-defense, found Wilson guilty of the Level 5 felony and determined he is a habitual offender.

[4] At the sentencing hearing, evidence was presented that Wilson, then thirty-three years old, has three felony convictions and nine misdemeanor convictions. Tr. Vol. III p. 98. His convictions include battery, domestic battery, and armed robbery. Evidence was also presented that Wilson has been incarcerated “on and off for most of his adult life,” that he has a “history of violating probation,” and that he has “seventy-one conduct violations in the DOC as a juvenile and adult between 2005 and 2022.” Id. at 97, 99. Finally, evidence was presented that Wilson went through a prison-disciplinary proceeding for this incident and had to pay around $1,000 in restitution from his prison account.

[5] The trial court found the following aggravators: (1) Wilson has an “extensive criminal history”; (2) the injury to the officer resulted in “serious bodily injury,” but Wilson was only charged with “bodily injury”; (3) Wilson was serving a sentence in the DOC when he committed the offense; and (4) the offense is “a crime of violence.” Id. at 103-04. The court found as a mitigator that Wilson had paid restitution but gave it “limited weight.” Id. at 104. Finding the aggravators to outweigh the mitigator, the court sentenced Wilson to six years for the Level 5 felony enhanced by six years for being a habitual offender, for a total sentence of twelve years.

[6] Wilson now appeals his sentence.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Wilson contends his twelve-year sentence is inappropriate and asks us to revise it under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that an appellate 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.” The court's role under Rule 7(B) is to “leaven the outliers,” and “we reserve our 7(B) authority for exceptional cases.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 160 (Ind. 2019). “Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.” Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008)). Because we generally defer to the judgment of trial courts in sentencing matters, defendants must persuade us that their sentences are inappropriate. Schaaf v. State, 54 N.E.3d 1041, 1044-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

[8] The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one to six years, with an advisory sentence of three years. I.C. § 35-50-2-6(b). At the time of Wilson's offense, the range for a habitual-offender enhancement for a Level 5 felony was two to six years. I.C. § 35-50-2-8(i) (2021).¹ The trial court sentenced Wilson to six years for the Level 5 felony enhanced by six years for being a habitual offender. This is the maximum sentence Wilson could have received.

[9] As for the nature of his offense, Wilson argues that the circumstances are “unique” and warrant a downward revision in his sentence. Appellant's Br. p. 8. He claims he was upset because he didn't do anything wrong, he only resisted being handcuffed because of his broken hand, and he acted in self-defense. The jury, however, rejected Wilson's self-defense claim. The record shows that Wilson, who was in prison, beat a correctional officer, causing a broken nose, which required surgery, and a concussion. Contrary to Wilson's claim, the circumstances he points to do not “mitigate” his offense. Id.

[10] As for his character, Wilson acknowledges that he has a “lengthy criminal history” and has been incarcerated from “2015 through 2018 and from 2019 to present day.” Id. at 9. However, he points out that he has worked to rehabilitate himself while in prison, including earning his GED (2016) and “several certificates for programs completed.” Id. He also claims that he “avoids fights when possible” and that he learned his lesson from this incident as he lost credit time (which he is trying to earn back) and “suffered institutional punishment,” including having to pay around $1,000 in restitution from his prison account. Id. at 9-10; Tr. pp. 94-95. He also points to his presentence investigation report, in which he claims he regrets not cooperating with the officers. Even considering some of these things in Wilson's favor, his extensive criminal history coupled with his history of probation violations and conduct violations in the DOC easily support his twelve-year sentence. Wilson has failed to persuade us that his twelve-year sentence is inappropriate.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Effective July 1, 2023, the range was changed to three to six years. See Pub. L. No. 37-2023, § 2.

Vaidik, Judge.

Bailey, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.