OUSLEY v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Austin D. Ousley (“Ousley”) was convicted after a jury trial of reckless homicide,¹ a Level 5 felony, and attempted murder,² a Level 1 felony, and admitted to an enhancement for the use of a firearm in the commission of the crimes.³ After a resentencing on remand, the trial court sentenced Ousley to five years for reckless homicide and forty years for attempted murder with the sentences to run consecutively and the attempted murder sentence enhanced by fifteen years for the firearm enhancement, which resulted in an aggregate sentence of sixty years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”). Ousley appeals his sentence, arguing that it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The Wildt Family Farms was established in 1919 and has been continuously farmed by the Wildt family for over a century. The farm property in Vanderburgh County included an old barn, a tin shed, and a vacant house located on Cypress Dale Road in Evansville. In January 2023, the Wildt family experienced a series of break-ins on the property where trespassers had broken into the barn and the vacant house. In response to these intrusions, the Wildts boarded up the house, leaving only one door for access, which they kept locked. To try to identify the trespassers, Shawn Wildt (“Shawn”) and Chad Wildt (“Chad”), who were brothers, installed trail cameras on the property, hoping to capture license plate numbers of those breaking in.

[3] On February 27, 2023, around 4:00 p.m., Ousley and a seventeen-year-old friend arrived at the Wildt property. Ousley had been there several times previously to take pictures of his truck and explore the empty house. Ousley parked his truck under a lean-to off of the barn and took photographs of his truck next to the old barn. After taking the pictures, Ousley and his friend entered the vacant house to look around. The trail cameras were triggered by Ousley's presence on the property and automatically sent photographs of Ousley and his pickup truck to Chad's wife. She immediately called Chad to inform him that someone was at the property.

[4] Chad and Shawn were working on a portion of the family farm approximately five minutes away when they received the alert. The two brothers drove to the property in Chad's truck and were both unarmed. When they arrived, they saw Ousley's truck, which appeared to be the same truck that the trail cameras had previously captured during earlier break-ins at the property. The brothers intended to confront the trespassers and tell them not to come back, or they would call the police. Chad parked his truck in front of Ousley's truck to prevent them from fleeing before they could speak with them. Because they did not see anyone near the barn or shed, Chad and Shawn entered the house.

[5] Chad and Shawn entered the kitchen of the house and called out for the trespassers. Ousley and his friend came into the room and stood approximately ten feet away from Chad and Shawn. Chad told Ousley and his friend that they were “a bunch of dumbasses” because there were cameras everywhere and told them that the Wildts now had pictures of their truck, dog, friend, and license plate. Tr. Vol. 2 p. 119. Chad told them, “[N]ow you're fucked.” Id. at 120.

[6] Before Chad could finish speaking, Ousley drew his handgun that had been in a holster on his waistband and shot Chad in the face. The bullet struck Chad near his lip, and he immediately lost consciousness. Ousley then fired his gun two more times with one of the bullets striking Shawn in the back, in the area of his right shoulder. The bullet traveled through Shawn's body, striking a rib and one of his lungs, and tearing a hole in his aorta and passing through his heart, which resulted in Shawn's death. In total, Ousley fired his gun three times inside the house—twice from the kitchen area and once from the breezeway.

[7] After firing his gun, Ousley and his friend fled the house and ran to Ousley's truck. Because Chad's truck was blocking Ousley's truck, Ousley drove his truck through the back wall of the lean-to as he left the property at approximately 4:08 p.m. Ousley dropped his friend off at the high school parking lot where the friend's car was parked, then drove home and retrieved his shotgun.

[8] When Chad regained consciousness, he found himself alone in the house—Shawn was not in the room, and Ousley and his friend were gone. Chad stumbled out of the house and made his way to the road, where he lay down and hoped that someone would drive by and see him. A passerby saw Chad walking in the yard, covered in blood, and stopped to help. He recruited utility workers who were driving by to assist with first aid and called 911 at 4:43 p.m. Chad was transported to the hospital. When the police arrived at the scene, they searched the area surrounding the house but did not initially locate Shawn. The officers entered the house and found Shawn to the left of the kitchen, lying face down in a pool of blood. They checked his body to try to render aid but determined that he had died.

[9] Meanwhile, Ousley left his home and drove to the back parking lot of Rural King. While parked there, he sent a Snapchat video that was viewed by the father of one of his friends. Believing it was a suicide note, the friend's father exchanged messages with Ousley and then went to look for him. Still in the parking lot, Ousley placed his handgun in his mouth and fired a single shot in an attempt to commit suicide. The friend's father discovered Ousley in his truck behind Rural King with an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head and called 911 at 6:28 p.m. When the police arrived, Ousley was alive and moving. He was removed from the vehicle and transported to the hospital.

[10] Chad spent two weeks in the hospital recovering from his gunshot wound. He suffered a broken jaw, and a clogged artery and underwent multiple surgeries. As a result of the injuries, he continued to experience jaw pain when eating and neck pain when turning his head. Bullet fragments remain lodged in his body near his C2 vertebrae and in his mouth. An autopsy performed on Shawn determined his cause of death to be a gunshot wound to the chest.

[11] On March 15, 2023, the State charged Ousley with murder, Level 1 felony attempted murder, and Level 6 felony residential entry. The State later filed notice that it was seeking a sentencing enhancement for the use of a firearm and also later amended the charging information to add two counts, Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass and Level 2 felony burglary. Before trial, the State dismissed the residential entry charge.

[12] Beginning on March 15, 2024, a five-day jury trial was held. At trial, Ousley testified in his own defense and offered a different account of the events that occurred in the house. He claimed that, when Chad entered the kitchen, Ousley stated, “[H]ey man, we'll leave. I apologize.” Tr. Vol. 3 p. 230. Chad then said he was going to “fucking kill [Ousley]” while approaching him and then punched Ousley between the eyes. Id. According to Ousley, he then pulled his gun and shot three times without aiming. Ousley also testified that he did not see Shawn in the house and did not know he had shot him. He claimed that he first learned he had shot two people when he heard it on a police scanner application on his phone. Ousley had created a video confession and sent it to his friend that was with him during the shooting, which was played during the trial. In that video confession, Ousley stated that his friend tried to stop him from shooting, but Ousley “did not listen [and] pushed him away.” Id. at 119.

[13] At the conclusion of the jury trial, the jury found Ousley guilty of Level 5 felony reckless homicide as a lesser-included offense of murder and of Level 1 felony attempted murder. The jury acquitted Ousley of criminal trespass and burglary. In a subsequent hearing outside the presence of the jury, Ousley admitted to the firearm enhancement.

[14] At the sentencing hearing held on July 31, 2024, the trial court reviewed the presentence investigation report and heard testimony, sentencing memoranda, and argument from counsel. The trial court found two mitigating factors, Ousley's young age at the time of the offense and his lack of a prior criminal history. The trial court identified four aggravating factors: (1) there were multiple victims; (2) Ousley did not have a right to be on the property; (3) the injuries to Chad were devastating and would have lifelong consequences, going beyond what the State was required to prove for attempted murder; and (4) the crime was committed in the presence of a juvenile. The trial court found that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and sentenced Ousley to five years executed for Level 5 felony reckless homicide and forty-five years for Level 1 felony attempted murder, enhanced by ten years for use of a firearm, with all sentences to run consecutively for a total of sixty years in the DOC.

[15] Ousley appealed his sentence under Case Number 24A-CR-2106, challenging both the legality and inappropriateness of his sentence. The State conceded that Ousley's forty-five-year sentence for Level 1 felony attempted murder exceeded the statutory range for the offense. This court issued a memorandum opinion on March 31, 2025, addressing only the legality of the sentence. See Ousley v. State, No. 24A-CR-2106 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2025) (mem.). This court reversed the trial court, finding that the trial court's sentence exceeded the statutory maximum by five years, and remanded for resentencing, but did not address Ousley's inappropriateness claim. Id.

[16] On remand, the trial court resentenced Ousley to five years executed for Level 5 felony reckless homicide, forty years executed for Level 1 felony attempted murder enhanced by fifteen years for the use of the firearm with the sentences to run consecutively, resulting in an aggregate sentence of sixty years executed in the DOC. Ousley now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[17] Ousley contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and the character of the offender. The Indiana Constitution authorizes appellate review and revision of a trial court's sentencing decision. See Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6; Jackson v. State, 145 N.E.3d 783, 784 (Ind. 2020). “That authority is implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), which permits an appellate court to revise a sentence if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the sentence is found to be inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 159 (Ind. 2019).

[18] Our review under Appellate Rule 7(B) focuses 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.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). We generally defer to the trial court's sentencing decision, and our goal is to determine whether the defendant's sentence is inappropriate, not whether some other sentence would be more appropriate. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). “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).

[19] Ousley was convicted of Level 5 felony reckless homicide and Level 1 felony attempted murder and admitted to sentencing enhancement for the use of a firearm. A person who commits a Level 5 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between one and six years, with the advisory sentence being three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b). A person who commits a Level 1 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between twenty and forty years, with the advisory sentence being thirty years. I.C. § 35-50-2-4(b). A person who knowingly or intentionally uses a firearm in the commission of their offense may be sentenced to an additional fixed term of imprisonment of between five years and twenty years. I.C. § 35-50-2-11(g). Here, Ousley was sentenced to five years for his Level 5 felony conviction and forty years for his Level 1 felony conviction with the Level 1 felony enhanced by fifteen years for the use of a firearm and the sentences were to be served consecutively for a total sentence of sixty years executed.

[20] When reviewing the nature of the offense, this court considers “the details and circumstances of the commission of the offense.” Merriweather v. State, 151 N.E.3d 1281, 1286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). In arguing that his sentence is inappropriate, Ousley acknowledges the serious nature of his offenses, given “the tragic death of Shawn ․ and the severe injuries sustained by Chad.” Appellant's Br. p. 10. However, he contends that “these consequences are fully accounted for in the felony levels assigned to his convictions.” Id.

[21] Considering the nature of Ousley's offenses, we do not believe that circumstances of the commission of the offenses support appellate revision of his sentence. Ousley and his friend trespassed on the Wildts's property, and when confronted by Chad and Shawn, Ousley pulled his gun, shot Chad in the face, and then fired indiscriminately toward Shawn, shooting him in the back, resulting in Shawn's death. As a result of being shot in the mouth, Chad suffered significant injuries, including a broken jaw and a clogged artery. At the time of the sentencing, he continued to experience jaw pain when eating and neck pain when turning his head, and bullet fragments remain lodged in his body near his vertebrae and in his mouth. Instead of rendering aid to Chad and Shawn or calling 911, Ousley fled. Prior to attempting suicide, Ousley made a video confession in which he stated that his friend had tried to stop him, but that Ousley did not listen, pushed him away, and fired the gun. While Ousley points to the fact that he attempted to commit suicide as a sign of remorse, he testified that he shot himself both because he felt bad for his actions but also because he was scared of the consequences of his actions. Therefore, remorse was not the only factor leading to his attempted suicide. Ousley also essentially asserts that he acted in self-defense, or with a lesser degree of culpability, when he fired his gun because he was afraid of Chad. However, the jury rejected any claim of self-defense at trial and convicted Ousley of attempted murder, meaning that they believed he acted with the specific intent to kill Chad when he shot him in the face. Ousley's assertions on appeal have not shown compelling evidence portraying the nature of his offenses in a positive light, accompanied by restraint, regard, or lack of brutality. See Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122.

[22] When we look to a defendant's character, we engage in “a broad analysis of the defendant's ‘qualities, life, and conduct.’ ” Cramer, 240 N.E.3d 693, 699 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Crabtree v. State, 152 N.E.3d 687, 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied). As to Ousley's character, he points to his lack of a criminal history, remorse, low risk to reoffend, and young age and characterizations by friends and a teacher of his peaceful nature. While it is true that Ousley had no prior criminal history when he committed the instant offenses, he did admit that he previously trespassed at the Wildts' property at least twice before the instant occurrence. See Chastain v. State, 165 N.E.3d 589, 601 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (recognizing that prior uncharged misconduct can be considered to moderate the weight afforded to the defendant's lack of criminal history), trans. denied. Also, although Ousley expressed remorse for shooting Chad and Shawn as a reason why he committed suicide, he also testified that he did so because he “felt [his] life was over” and he feared the consequences of his actions. Tr. Vol. 4 p. 58. This demonstrates that Ousley was attempting to avoid the consequences of his actions. Ousley has not demonstrated substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character to portray his character in a positive light that sentence revision is necessary. See Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122.

[23] Based on the facts in the record, Ousley has not shown that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

[24] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-1-5.

2.   I.C. §§ 35-42-1-1(1), 35-41-5-1(a).

3.   I.C. § 35-50-2-11.

Foley, Judge.

Altice, C.J. and May, J., concur.