Donald R. Walter, Jr., Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Donald R. Walter, Jr., appeals following his convictions of four counts of Level 5 felony aiding, inducing, or causing theft.¹ Walter presents two issues for our review, which we restate as:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted a letter from the prosecutor to a witness outlining that witness's cooperation agreement; and

2. Whether Walter's sentence is inappropriate based on the nature of his offenses and his character.

We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Walter's wife Toni Walter (“Toni”) began working as a bookkeeper for Coogle Trucking in Otterbein, Indiana, in 2005. Her job responsibilities included maintaining the company's financial records, managing its biweekly payroll, and paying its creditors. Toni became dissatisfied with her job, and in 2013, Toni submitted her letter of resignation to Larry and Carolyn Coogle (collectively “the Coogles”), the company's owners. The Coogles promised to change how they managed the business, so Toni withdrew her letter of resignation, but the promised changes never occurred.

[3] In 2016, Walter suggested that Toni “start taking money” from Coogle Trucking. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 47.) He explained the stolen funds would “help pay bills” and allow them to “do more stuff to live a better life.” (Id. at 50.) Toni agreed to participate in the scheme, and she began writing “an extra check here or there.” (Id. at 154.) The scheme eventually evolved into Toni writing herself extra paychecks and writing checks from Coogle Trucking to Walter. She disguised her fraudulent payments in the company's financial records by recording them as payments to legitimate vendors.

[4] Walter was primarily responsible for managing the couple's finances, and he monitored the couple's bank and credit card accounts. Toni deposited the fraudulent paychecks to herself into an account at Staley Credit Union, and she deposited the fraudulent checks to Walter into an account at Regions Bank (“Account 703”). Walter then wrote checks drawing from Account 703.

[5] Toni continued writing fraudulent checks to herself and Walter until she was hospitalized with COVID-19 on November 30, 2020. Toni did not return to work at Coogle Trucking until late January 2021. Coogle Trucking continued to issue Toni regular, biweekly paychecks during the period when she was off work, but without the extra money she and Walter were taking from Coogle Trucking, the couple had to sell some of their assets, including cars, off-road vehicles, and guns, to cover their monthly expenses. When Toni returned to work, she told Walter that she no longer wanted to take money from Coogle Trucking, but Walter pressured her to continue. Walter “would belittle [Toni], call [her] names.” (Id. at 123.) After a few months, Toni resumed stealing money from Coogle Trucking and “[a]ll the fun toys came back.” (Id. at 124.)

[6] In 2021, Toni and Walter took out a mortgage to finance building a new house in Attica, Indiana. They did not disclose Account 703 when completing the mortgage application, and Walter's mother lent the couple tens of thousands of dollars to assist them as they built the new house. Toni and Walter also did not include the stolen money when reporting their income to the IRS and Indiana Department of Revenue.

[7] In June or July 2022, Toni accessed Larry Coogle's email account “by mistake” and saw an email indicating she “was being investigated.” (Id. at 127.) Toni told Walter about the email, and he said, “I told you to cover our asses” and “stormed out the door and then he came back later.” (Id.) In the next few days, Walter and Toni would go on long drives during which Walter instructed Toni to say he “had nothing to do with” the scheme and that she “did it all.” (Id. at 129.) Toni and Walter separated shortly thereafter. Toni revealed the scheme to her daughter and sister. She initially said Walter was not involved in the scheme at all, but she later told her daughter and sister about Walter's involvement.

[8] Based on information from Larry Coogle, the Indiana State Police obtained a search warrant for Walter's house. The officers executed the search warrant on August 19, 2022. Walter let the officers into the house, but he left the house when the officers began searching it. He went to the bank and withdrew $80,000.00, which he gave to his mother to repay her for the loans.

[9] On December 9, 2022, the State charged Walter with six counts of Level 5 felony aiding, inducing, or causing theft and one count each of Level 5 felony corrupt business influence,² Level 5 felony money laundering,³ and Level 6 felony money laundering.⁴ The State later amended the count alleging Level 6 felony money laundering to a second count alleging Level 5 money laundering.

[10] The State also charged Toni with similar crimes. At some point, Toni agreed to testify against Walter, and the State sent her attorney a letter outlining a plea offer in exchange for her testimony. The letter explained:

The State reserves the right to withdraw this proffer in any pending cases against her until your client has testified truthfully and honestly at trial. It is within the State's sole discretion to determine whether she is providing truthful and honest testimony. If the State elects not to call your client as a witness, the State will not use any of her statements, nor any evidence derived from those statements, against her.

Based upon her statements, the State may elect to call your client as a witness. Upon her truthful and honest testimony at the trial of Donald Walter, with the truthfulness of her testimony determined at the discretion of the State, we are prepared to make the following binding offer to resolve all matters pending against your client.

(Ex. Vol. 4 at 3) (emphasis in original). The plea offer required Toni to testify against Walter at trial and plead guilty to four of the charges pending against her. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges against her and cap her sentence at eight years, “with all terms of the service of that sentence left to the discretion of the court, except for restitution.” (Id.)

[11] The trial court held Walter's trial on June 25 and 26, 2024. Toni testified against Walter at his trial, and the State sought to introduce the plea offer letter into evidence. Walter objected and argued the letter improperly vouched for the witness's truthfulness, but the trial court overruled his objection. Detective Ben Rector of the Indiana State Police testified regarding his review of Coogle Trucking's financial records and the bank statements of Toni and Walter. He concluded that approximately $450,000.00 of the deposits Toni and Walter made between 2017 and 2022 were fraudulent. The jury returned guilty verdicts on four counts of Level 5 felony aiding, causing, or inducing theft, two counts of Level 5 felony money laundering, and one count of Level 5 felony corrupt business influence. To avoid double jeopardy, the trial court entered judgments of conviction on only the four Level 5 felony aiding, causing, or inducing theft counts.

[12] The trial court held Walter's sentencing hearing on July 24, 2024. Detective Rector calculated Coogle Trucking's losses from the convictions as $411,136.95. Larry Coogle wrote a statement to the trial court explaining that even though he was about to turn eighty, he could not retire because the thefts left him “trying to catch up.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 39.) He wrote that “there is no limit on [Walter] and Toni's spending, like vacations, a new home, new vehicles, RTVs, swimming pools, sauna, and Toni always had lots of cash on her person.” (Id.)

[13] In pronouncing Walter's sentence, the trial court noted the letters of support for Walter that it had received ahead of sentencing and stated “[t]hat speaks well of your character.” (Id. at 55.) However, the trial court also commented that “the biggest thing, obviously, that stands out is just the amount of money involved. And the amount of money involved, at least to just a normal guy like me from a place like Benton County, is a staggering amount of money.” (Id.) The trial court noted Larry Coogle “went out of his way to help” the couple, (id. at 56), and yet, they took advantage of him for years. The trial court sentenced Walter to a term of six years on each of the four theft counts. The trial court ordered concurrent sentences for convictions one and two, concurrent sentences for convictions three and four, but ordered these two concurrent sentence groups to run consecutively, resulting in an aggregate term of twelve years. The trial court ordered Walter to serve the first four years of his sentence executed in the Indiana Department of Correction, and suspended the remainder of his sentence to probation. The trial court also ordered Walter to pay $411,136.95 in restitution. After pronouncing Walter's sentence, the trial court explained:

You do need some extended period to try to make as much restitution as you can. And I'm sure it doesn't feel like this to you, but I feel like that's pretty lenient. And that's because you haven't had any criminal convictions up to this point. I get what [the deputy prosecutor] is saying that, you know, you sort of got away with things, but, you know, you've been convicted for these offenses that started back in 2018.

(Id. at 57.)

Discussion and Decision

1. Admission of Prosecutor's Letter

[14] Walter asserts the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the plea offer letter from the State to Toni. He contends the letter should not have been admitted because it informed Toni that the State “will not call her to testify unless she is telling the truth—a clear communication that the very act of calling Toni to the stand means that the prosecution has both analyzed Toni's testimony and determined that she is telling the truth.” (Appellant's Br. at 13) (emphasis in original). Trial courts enjoy broad discretion regarding the admission of evidence, and we review its decisions for an abuse of discretion. Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1193 (Ind. 2021). “We will reverse only if the trial court's ruling was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it and errors affect a party's substantial rights.” Id.

[15] Walter argues the letter was barred by Indiana Evidence Rule 704(b). Rule 704(b) provides that “[w]itnesses may not testify to opinions concerning intent, guilt, or innocence in a criminal case; the truth or falsity of allegations; whether a witness has testified truthfully; or legal conclusions.” This Rule is intended to prevent witnesses from invading the province of the jury. Alvarez-Madrigal v. State, 71 N.E.3d 887, 892 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. It is the responsibility of the jurors to determine what weight to assign a particular witness's testimony. Id. Likewise, a prosecutor cannot “make an argument which takes the form of personally vouching for a witness.” Gaby v. State, 949 N.E.2d 870, 880 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). However, Walter acknowledges, “there is no rule that a prosecutor may not introduce into evidence a plea agreement entered into by a chief witness even if this plea agreement contains a clause which requires the truthful testimony of this witness.” (Appellant's Br. at 16.) In Brown v. State, our Indiana Supreme Court explained that “when the State has entered into a plea agreement with a witness it is necessary for the State to disclose such agreement.” 587 N.E.2d 111, 113 (Ind. 1992).

[16] Walter argues “[t]he only reasonable interpretation of [the plea offer] letter by a juror is that the State's act of calling Toni to the stand means that the State had determined that her assertions were truthful.” (Appellant's Br. at 17.) We do not see the plea offer letter that way. The letter was sent before Toni testified. While the State's plea offer was contingent on Toni testifying truthfully, the letter could not vouch for the truthfulness of her testimony because that determination could only be made after she testified. The plea offer letter entered into evidence in this case is not markedly different from the situation in which a plea agreement is entered into evidence that includes a term requiring the witness to testify truthfully. The letter conveyed Toni was facing criminal charges and she was receiving a benefit from testifying against Walter. A reasonable juror could have interpreted the letter as a reason to treat Toni's testimony with skepticism because she had a reason to minimize her own culpability and shift blame toward Walter. See Lewis v. State, 629 N.E.2d 934, 937 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (“The credibility of felon-witnesses is highly suspect․ The jury should have the evidence related to any consideration a felon-witness receives in exchange for testifying on behalf of the State. Such influence further impairs the credibility of a felon-witness.”) (internal citations omitted). The letter did not express an opinion on the ultimate issue as prohibited by Rule 704(b), and thus we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it. See, e.g., Alvarez-Madrigal, 71 N.E.3d at 893 (holding doctor's general statistical statement about how child molest victims behave did not invade the province of the jury when the doctor did not give an opinion regarding the victim's truthfulness).

2. Inappropriate Sentence

[17] Walter also argues his twelve-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate given the nature of his offenses and his character. Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), a sentence may be revised 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 “ ‘must consider’ both factors, but the defendant need not ‘necessarily prove’ that the sentence is inappropriate on both counts. Revision may be warranted ‘where only one of the prongs weighs heavily in favor’ of the defendant.” Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 126 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Connor v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)) (emphasis in Connor).

[18] Sentencing is a function of the trial court, whose judgment “should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008). “This ‘deference should prevail unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense’ and ‘the defendant's character.’ ” Oberhansley v. State, 208 N.E.3d 1261, 1267 (Ind. 2023) (quoting Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015)). Appellate review of a sentence is to “attempt to leaven outliers ․ but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Nicholson v. State, 211 N.E.3d 680, 684 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225), trans. denied. “Our review of the sentence should focus on the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Gleason v. State, 965 N.E.2d 702, 712 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). The burden of proving that a sentence is inappropriate falls to the defendant. Littlefield v. State, 215 N.E.3d 1081, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied.

[19] “When we evaluate whether a sentence is inappropriate given the nature of the offense, we first look to the advisory sentence.” Zamilpa v. State, 229 N.E.3d 1079, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). A Level 5 felony is punishable by a term of imprisonment of between one and six years, with the advisory term being three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b). Thus, the trial court's sentence on each count was the maximum sentence it could impose. However, each conviction concerned a different period. The first involved Walter's thefts in 2018, the second encompassed Walter's thefts during 2019, the third related to his thefts in 2020, and the fourth regarded his thefts in 2021. Therefore, the trial court could have ordered Walter to serve all his sentences consecutively. See, e.g., Grimes v. State, 84 N.E.3d 635, 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (holding defendant could be sentenced to consecutive terms because his 18 incest offenses were not part of a single episode of criminal conduct when the offenses involved separate acts of sexual intercourse and the acts took place on many days during a nine-week period), trans. denied. Yet, the trial court chose not to do so. Consequently, Walter's aggregate sentence represents half of the maximum sentence he could have received.

[20] Walter notes that his offenses were nonviolent, and he compares his case to Kovats v. State, where we held the defendant's maximum twenty-year sentence was inappropriate despite the “horrific” nature of her crime. 982 N.E.2d 409, 416 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). In that case, Kovats worked as a home healthcare nurse. Id. at 412. With an 89-year-old patient in her car and under the influence of oxymorphone, Kovats drove away from a gas station without paying for gasoline, fled from the police at speeds over 100 mph, and crashed her vehicle. Id. at 412-13. The patient later died from the injuries she sustained in the crash. Id. at 413. The State convicted Kovats of Class B felony neglect of a dependent, and the trial court sentenced Kovats to the maximum term for a Class B felony of twenty years. Id. at 416. We exercised our authority to revise her sentence downward to a term of fifteen years. Id. at 417. We explained “[t]he horrific nature of her offense alone supports the imposition of a sentence greater than the advisory.” Id. Nonetheless, we concluded a downward revision was necessary because the offense was Kovats's first felony conviction, she had sought treatment for her addiction while in jail, and she had four children, including one with cystic fibrosis. Id.

[21] Here, Walter's aggregate sentence is significantly less than both the aggregate sentence the trial court imposed in Kovats and the revised sentence Kovats received. In addition, Kovats's crime occurred on one day and was at least partially attributable to her untreated drug addiction, while Walter's crimes were part of a multi-year scheme in which he and Toni stole over $400,000.00. They used that money to buy personal luxuries and hid the income when filing taxes. They also did not disclose Account 703 on their mortgage application. Indiana Code section 35-43-4-2(a)(2) provides that a theft becomes a Level 5 felony if it exceeds $50,000.00, and Walter's thefts greatly exceeded that amount. The thefts resulted in Larry Coogle needing to delay his retirement despite being almost eighty years old. Thus, we see nothing about Walter's offenses that merits a downward revision of his sentence. See, e.g., Merriweather v. State, 151 N.E.3d 1281, 1286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (holding nature of offenses did not merit downward reduction of defendant's sentence when he committed multiple home invasion burglaries and the harm inflicted on one of the victims greatly exceeded the basic statutory elements necessary to prove the offense).

[22] Regarding Walter's character, he points to his lack of criminal history and the letters of support that his friends, family members, and employers sent to the trial court ahead of his sentencing. However, while Walter lacked a formal criminal history, the facts of the case indicate he did not live a lawful life. Moreover, when the police arrived to serve a search warrant on his home, Walter went to the bank and withdrew $80,000.00 to give to his mother. When Walter realized he was caught, he did not try to make amends, but instead, sought to redirect the money under his control to his family. He also tried to convince Toni to take all the blame. These facts reflect poorly on Walter's character. See, e.g., Skeens v. State, 151 N.E.3d 1248, 1256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (holding defendant's character did not merit a downward revision of her sentence even though the offense represented her first criminal conviction because of her history of unlawful, “selfish, defiant, combative, and belligerent” behavior). Therefore, we hold Walter's twelve-year aggregate sentence is not inappropriate.

Conclusion

[23] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the prosecutor's letter outlining Toni's plea agreement. In addition, Walter's twelve-year sentence is not inappropriate. We accordingly affirm the trial court.

[24] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(2) (theft) & Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4 (aiding, inducing, or causing an offense).

2.   Ind. Code § 35-45-6-2.

3.   Ind. Code § 35-45-15-5(a)(3)(A).

4.   Ind. Code § 35-45-15-5(a)(3).

May, Judge.

Judges Tavitas and DeBoer concur. Tavitas, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.