WININGER v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Rebecca J. Wininger pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony domestic battery on a person with a disability resulting in bodily injury and was sentenced to five years in the Indiana Department of Correction. Wininger now appeals, claiming her sentence is inappropriate given the nature of her offense and her character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In June 2020, Wininger became upset with her daughter-in-law (“Victim”) about chores and hit Victim on the head with a baseball bat. The strike caused Victim's head to bleed and left a scar. At the time, Victim—who is a person with a disability—lived in the same house as Wininger.

[3] The State charged Wininger with Level 5 felony domestic battery on a person with a disability resulting in bodily injury (“Count 1”), Level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly weapon, and Level 6 felony strangulation. Wininger entered an open guilty plea to Count 1. In exchange, the State dismissed the other two charges.

[4] At sentencing, Wininger detailed her numerous health ailments: COPD, “severe scoliosis,” neuropathy, asthma, sleep apnea, vitamin D and B12 deficiencies, and thyroid issues. Tr. Vol. 2 at 35. On top of the several medications she takes each day, Wininger carries a “rescue inhaler” because sometimes her breathing “gets a little wonky.” Id. at 34. Although she had worked at the local library, Wininger's deteriorating health forced her to resign in 2017. Wininger explained she “fe[lt] very horrible” for striking Victim with a bat, wishing she “could take it back.” Id. at 42. Noting her lack of criminal history, Wininger requested she be placed on probation.

[5] Victim's statement was also read to the court. Victim described a string of abuse by Wininger:

She'd hit me, yell, and cuss at me, slap me, punch me in the face, choke me, she bit me, drug me around the house by my hair, made me lick up Lysol disinfectant, made me get my hair all cut off ․, slammed me into my daughter's baby bed and broke the bed, hit me with a baseball bat on the head, and also, stomped on my ankle with her foot to the point it was broken.

Id. at 48. At times, Wininger's conduct caused Victim to fear for her life, like when Wininger told Victim she “knew people that would cut [Victim's] body up and put it in a body bag.” Id. After years of abuse, Victim has scars, bite marks, and PTSD. Sometimes Victim has nightmares, struggles to sleep, and feels depressed. Victim asked the court to show Wininger “the same kindness that she showed me for [the] three years [that] she abused me.” Id. at 50.

[6] The trial court found the following aggravating factors: Victim is a person with a disability; Wininger had the care, custody, or control of Victim; and the harm, injury, loss, or damage suffered by Victim was significant and greater than the elements necessary to prove the commission of the offense. The trial court considered Wininger's lack of criminal history as a mitigating factor and sentenced her to five years incarceration.

Wininger's sentence is not inappropriate.

[7] Wininger asks us to revise her sentence.¹ The Indiana Constitution authorizes this Court to review and revise a trial court's sentencing decision as provided by rule. Ind. Const. art. 7, § 6. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides we 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 principal role of appellate review is to leaven the outliers, not to achieve a perceived correct sentence in each case. Conley v. State, 183 N.E.3d 276, 288 (Ind. 2022). Therefore, “we reserve our 7(B) authority for exceptional cases.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 160 (Ind. 2019) (per curiam).

[8] “[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 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). The two prongs of 7(B) review are “separate inquiries to ultimately be balanced in determining whether a sentence is inappropriate.” Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 126 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Conner v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)). “[T]o the extent the evidence on one prong militates against relief, a claim based on the other prong must be all the stronger to justify relief.” Id. at 127.

[9] The question “is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Helsley v. State, 43 N.E.3d 225, 228 (Ind. 2015) (quoting King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)) (emphasis omitted). Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate “turns on our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224. The defendant bears the burden of persuading us a revised sentence is warranted. Cramer v. State, 240 N.E.3d 693, 698 (Ind. 2024).

A. Nature of Wininger's Offense

[10] We begin with the nature of Wininger's offense, which she concedes is “serious.” Appellant's Br. at 9. Wininger hit a person with a disability under her care on the head with a baseball bat. The strike caused Victim's head to bleed and left a scar. Moreover, this was not an isolated incident. For years, Wininger subjected Victim to a plethora of physical and mental abuse. See Chastain v. State, 165 N.E.3d 589, 601 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (concluding misconduct, both charged and uncharged, is relevant at sentencing), trans. denied. Due to Wininger's acts, Victim suffers from nightmares, PTSD, and depression, among other things. Wininger's offense was unaccompanied by restraint or regard for Victim and weighs against revising her sentence. The lack of compelling evidence portraying the nature of her offense in a positive light means Wininger must make an even stronger showing regarding her character to prevail. See Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 127.

B. Wininger's Character

[11] Examining Wininger's character “involves a broad analysis of [her] ‘qualities, life, and conduct.’ ” Cramer, 240 N.E.3d at 699 (quoting Crabtree v. State, 152 N.E.3d 687, 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied). Wininger primarily directs our attention to her guilty plea, remorse, and “complete lack of criminal history” as displays of her redemptive character. Appellant's Br. at 11. True, a guilty plea demonstrates a defendant's acceptance of responsibility for the crime and extends a benefit to the State. Reis v. State, 88 N.E.3d 1099, 1105 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). A defendant therefore should receive mitigating weight in return, the degree of which will vary case by case. Id. For example, when the defendant receives a substantial benefit for the plea—like reduced or dropped charges—the mitigating weight afforded to the plea may be minimal. See Anglemyer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 218, 221 (Ind. 2007); Cf. Cotto v. State, 829 N.E.2d 520, 525–26 (Ind. 2005) (holding a guilty plea was entitled to significant mitigating weight where the State did not directly dismiss any charges). Here, the State dismissed Wininger's other felony charges in exchange for her pleading guilty to Count 1. Having received a notable benefit for doing so, Wininger deserves minimal mitigating weight for pleading guilty.

[12] In one sense, Wininger is correct: she lacks a criminal history and claimed to feel remorseful for her actions, both of which point toward revision. But the trial court considered these facts when imposing an above-advisory, but below maximum, sentence. Overall, Wininger has not presented compelling evidence of good character needed to justify overriding the trial court's considerable sentencing discretion. This is particularly true in light of the nature of her offense.

Conclusion

[13] Wininger's sentence is not inappropriate.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one to six years, with an advisory sentence of three years. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b) (2014).

Kenworthy, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Brown, J., concur.