Mark William Walters, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Mark Walters appeals his sentence for Level 4 felony criminal confinement. He argues his sentence of twelve years, with four years suspended to probation and the ability to petition for sentence modification after four years, is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Finding Walters’ sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mark Walters and his girlfriend, Joellen Ritchie, lived with Walters’ mother, Michelle Adams. The couple had a tumultuous relationship fueled, in part, by their use of methamphetamine. Walters had a history of domestic violence and battered Ritchie prior to the events underlying this case.

[3] In November 2023, Ritchie was participating in an inpatient substance abuse program while Walters continued to reside in Adams’ home. One day, Walters asked Adams to use her vehicle; she refused. Walters then threatened to kill Adams’ dog if she did not turn off the security cameras on the premises. Fearing Walters would hurt her once she turned off the cameras, she nonetheless complied. Her suspicions were correct—Walters grabbed Adams and slammed her against the side of the house. He threw a glass coffee table at her and again threatened to kill her dog if she contacted police. Walters then forced Adams to clean up the broken glass.

[4] Around that time,¹ Ritchie prematurely checked herself out of the substance abuse program. Adams picked up Ritchie from the program and brought her home to Walters, because Walters “want[ed] ․ Ritchie back home.” Ex. Vol. III p. 5, St. Ex. 2. On the day of Ritchie's return, Walters and Ritchie used methamphetamine.

[5] Over that weekend, Walters refused to allow Adams and Ritchie to leave the house, and he confined Adams to her bedroom. When Adams attempted to leave her room, Walters intervened and slammed Adams into a doorframe. Adams observed Ritchie had a bloody lip and saw Ritchie mouth the words “help me.” Ex. Vol. III p. 7, St. Ex. 2.

[6] Adams eventually convinced Walters to let her leave the house, and she immediately went to a domestic violence center and called the police. Shortly after Adams left, Ritchie also attempted to leave the house. Walters retaliated by choking Ritchie until she lost consciousness and urinated on herself. Police arrested Walters later that day.

[7] Walters was charged with Level 3 felony criminal confinement, Level 4 felony criminal confinement, Level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly weapon, Level 5 felony domestic battery, Level 6 felony strangulation, Level 6 felony domestic battery, and Level 6 felony criminal confinement. Walters pleaded guilty to Level 4 felony criminal confinement of Ritchie, and the remaining charges were dismissed.

[8] The trial court held a sentencing hearing in November 2024. The court heard testimony from Ritchie, Intake Coordinator Marianne Garrett and Walters, and reviewed a letter from Adams. Ritchie asserted Walters had changed since the incident and believed Walters needed rehabilitation services for his substance abuse and anger issues rather than face incarceration. Garrett recommended that Walters needed intensive programming with the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) and believed the county community corrections program was not equipped to meet Walters’ needs. Garrett further testified that she had serious safety and security concerns about Walters being placed with community corrections. In Adams’ letter to the trial court, she described Walters’ abuse and shared her fear that she would “die at [Walters’] hands.” Ex. Vol. III p. 9, State's Ex. 2.

[9] Walters testified that he had a high school education and was consistently working in factories and with employment agencies before his incarceration. He also stated he was participating in home-based case management services with the Department of Child Services for an unrelated manner, and—while incarcerated—attended church and meetings for Narcotics Anonymous. He testified that he was not the “monster [he] was that day[,]” but acknowledged that he could have killed Ritchie. Tr. Vol. II. p. 46. Walters claimed he was remorseful but also testified that “the incident starting” was Ritchie's fault. Id. at 61. He also blamed Adams for picking up Ritchie from the substance abuse program while he was “in a mental state[.]” Id. at 65.

[10] The trial court sentenced Walters to twelve years, with eight years executed in the DOC and four years suspended to probation. The trial court also permitted Walters to petition for a sentence modification after serving four years. Walters now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

Walters’ sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

[11] Walters contends his twelve-year sentence with four years suspended to probation is inappropriate and warrants revision in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) permits an appellate court to 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.” We give “considerable deference” to the trial court's sentencing decision and attempt only to “leaven the outliers” rather than achieve a “perceived ‘correct’ result” in every case. Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 122 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222, 1225 (Ind. 2008)). A defendant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). “Whether a sentence should be deemed 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.’ ” McCain v. State, 148 N.E.3d 977, 985 (Ind. 2020) (quoting Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225).

[12] First, “[i]n considering the nature of the offense we recognize the advisory sentence is the starting point the Legislature selected as appropriate for the crime committed.” Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014) (citing Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 494). Here, Walters’ Level 4 felony criminal confinement conviction has a sentencing range between two and twelve years and an advisory sentence of six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5 (2014). Walters’ total twelve-year sentence rests at the maximum end of his statutory range—six years more than the advisory sentence. A full four years are suspended, though, and the trial court affirmatively provided an additional benefit to petition for a sentence modification after serving just four years.

[13] The offense at issue—Level 4 Felony criminal confinement—is committed when a person knowingly or intentionally confines another person without their consent, which results in moderate bodily injury to a person other than the one confining. Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3(b)(1) (2019). In committing the crime, Walters terrorized Ritchie over the course of a weekend. He prevented Ritchie from leaving the house and choked Ritchie until she lost consciousness and control of her body. He later acknowledged he could have killed Ritchie. On appeal, Walters claims his conduct “was the unfortunate result of a mixture of drugs and a toxic relationship” and argues his conduct “did not significantly exceed the elements of the offense[.]” App. Br. pp. 10-11. We disagree. Walters’ conduct was particularly heinous and brutal. We see no “compelling evidence” portraying Walters’ offense in a positive light. Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). Walters’ sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense.

[14] Turning next to Walters’ character, he points to his high school education, consistent employment history and engagement in Narcotics Anonymous and home-based case management services as redeeming qualities. However, we observe that Walters, now 36 years old, has a long and violent criminal history that dates back to when he was sixteen, and includes eight violent or domestic-violence-related convictions committed as an adult. One of Walters’ previous domestic battery convictions involved the same victim: Ritchie. See Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 130 (declining to revise sentence where defendant repeatedly committed crimes against same victim). Further, Walters terrorized his own mother and subjected her to physical and emotional abuse. Walters claims he is remorseful for his conduct. The trial court disagreed, finding Walters instead blamed his victims for his illegal conduct. We agree with the trial court. Walters’ sentence is not inappropriate in light of his character.

[15] Walters has not met his burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Accordingly, we affirm.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The exact timeline of events is unclear from the record on appeal.

Scheele, Judge.

Judges May and Weissmann concur. May, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.