III v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] When William Glesing III was arrested on an outstanding warrant in a high school parking lot, police found methamphetamine and heroin in his pocket. He was charged with Level 5 felony possession as to each drug. The trial court sentenced Glesing to 6 years imprisonment, with two years suspended to probation. Glesing now appeals this sentence as inappropriate. Given his extensive criminal history and his failure to show that the nature of his offenses otherwise warrants revision of his sentence, we affirm.

Facts

[2] In October 2020, Glesing had an active warrant for his arrest based on pending felony auto theft charges in Dearborn County. Following a tip, police located Glesing driving around the parking lot of a Madison County high school during a youth football game. When officers approached him, Glesing claimed they had no right to stop him and talked over the officers as they attempted to explain the warrant. Officers eventually arrested him and, in the process, found in his pocket a bag filled with a crystal-like substance and a piece of paper covered in a tar-like substance. Subsequent testing identified these substances as methamphetamine and heroin, respectively, in amounts less than 5 grams each. As Glesing was being taken into custody, he asked officers not to charge him because he was trying to turn his life around.

[3] Glesing was charged with two Level 5 felonies: possession of methamphetamine within 500 feet of a school and possession of a narcotic drug within 500 feet of a school. While on pre-trial release on these charges, Glesing committed new criminal offenses in Hendricks and Hancock counties.¹

[4] Glesing eventually pleaded guilty to both Level 5 felony possession charges. He requested the court delay his sentencing so he could continue to participate in a substance abuse program, Recovery While Incarcerated, before being sentenced. The trial court agreed and scheduled a sentencing hearing for six months later.

[5] At sentencing, the State presented evidence of Glesing's lengthy criminal record: 17 felonies, 12 misdemeanors, and 16 violations of probation, community corrections commitments, and drug court programs. In addition to the charges in Hendricks and Hancock counties that arose during his pre-trial release in the present case, Glesing had also been charged with four new offenses in Marion County just one month before the sentencing hearing.²

[6] Glesing testified that he was discharged from the Recovery While Incarcerated program, though he claimed it was due to a violation he did not commit. He emphasized that he was ready to “grow up and admit that [he] did wrong” after years of trying to “beat the system.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 31. He explained that he has three teenage children and a construction business that he wants to get back to, and he requested “some sort of treatment” for his addiction. Id. at 32. Though the trial court was “encouraged” by Glesing's acceptance of responsibility, it found his lengthy criminal record and “continued pattern of behavior” was significant. Id. at 41-42.

[7] The trial court sentenced Glesing to concurrent 6-year terms for each of the Level 5 felonies, comprised of 4 years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction and 2 years on probation. The court also ordered that Glesing undergo substance abuse treatment as a condition of probation. Glesing appeals this sentence as inappropriate.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) states that an appellate court may revise a sentence 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.” These two prongs 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 Connor v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)). We give “substantial deference” to the trial court's sentencing decision, attempting only “to leaven the outliers” rather than “achieve a perceived ‘correct’ sentence.” Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014) (citation omitted).

[9] In assessing the appropriateness of a sentence, we first look to the statutory range established for that class of offense. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218. Glesing's convictions for possession of methamphetamine and possession of a narcotic drug were each Level 5 felonies, which have a sentencing range of 1 to 6 years and an advisory sentence of 3 years. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b). Though his 6-year sentence for each offense is the maximum, the court ordered the sentences to run concurrently and suspended 2 years to probation, thereby minimizing Glesing's total incarceration time.

[10] In requesting a revision of his sentence, Glesing claims that the “nature of the offense[s] is sufficiently compelling to neutralize [his] lengthy criminal record.” Appellant's Br., p. 9. But that is a high hurdle he cannot clear. See Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 127 (“[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.”). Over the past 20 years, Glesing has amassed 28 total convictions—17 felonies and 11 misdemeanors—for offenses including theft, resisting law enforcement, possession of a controlled substance, driving while intoxicated, and domestic battery in the presence of a child. He has violated conditions of probation, community corrections, and drug court 16 times. Glesing had an active arrest warrant when he committed the present offenses, and he was charged with new offenses in multiple counties while on pre-trial release.

[11] Nevertheless, Glesing emphasizes that nothing about the nature of his offenses “made it more serious than other cases involving possession of small amounts of 2 controlled substances.” Appellant's Br., p. 9. He claims that his proximity to the high school was already used to elevate the offense to a Level 5 felony and thus cannot be used to elevate his sentence here. See Ind. Code § 35-48-1-16.5(3)(A) (2020) (listing as enhancing circumstance the commission of crime “in, on, or within” 500 feet of a school when children are reasonable expected to be present). However, Glesing was not incidentally in the vicinity of a school but intentionally on school property and surrounded by many school-aged children, as he was arrested around 3 p.m. while attending a youth football game on the school field. Moreover, Glesing was uncooperative when officers attempted to take him into custody.

[12] Glesing has not pointed to anything in the record demonstrating that he acted with particular restraint or regard. See Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015) (noting that offenses are “portray[ed] in a positive light” when committed with “restraint, regard, and lack of brutality”). Glesing has failed to show that the nature of his offenses overcomes the evidence reflecting negatively on his character, namely his lengthy criminal record. See Moss v. State, 13 N.E.3d 440, 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (“Even a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendant's character.”).

[13] Finally, Glesing's sentence already reflects substantial leniency by the court and consideration of his substance abuse disorder. Before sentencing, Glesing was given the opportunity to continue his participation in Recovery While Incarcerated but did not successfully complete the program. Then, the court suspended 2 years of his sentence to probation, during which he was ordered to participate in substance abuse treatment.

[14] Given the foregoing, Glesing has failed to show that his 6-year total sentence, with two years suspended to probation, is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character. We affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   According to the presentence investigation report introduced at sentencing, Glesing was found guilty of Level 6 felony intimidation in Hancock County and five charges in Hendricks County including Level 6 felony identity deception and Level 6 felony theft.

2.   According to the presentence investigation report, Glesing was charged in Marion County with auto theft and three counts of drug possession. As of his sentencing hearing in this appeal, these charges were still pending.

Weissmann, Judge.

Judges Bradford and DeBoer concur. Bradford, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.