WADSWORTH v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] In 2024 and 2025, Terry D. Wadsworth, who at one time was a police officer, “uploaded several images of child sexual abuse material on social media.” Appellant's Br. p. 5. Upon learning this, the State charged Wadsworth with five counts of Level 4 felony child exploitation (child less than 12 years old), two counts of Level 5 felony child exploitation, and Class A misdemeanor distribution of an intimate image. The parties entered into a plea agreement under which Wadsworth pled guilty to one of the Level 4 felonies and one of the Level 5 felonies, the State dismissed the remaining charges, and sentencing was left to the discretion of the trial court. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of six years for the Level 4 felony and three years for the Level 5 felony, for a total of nine years, with four years to be served in the Department of Correction and five years suspended to probation.

[2] Wadsworth now appeals, asking us to reduce his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that an appellate court “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 court's role under Rule 7(B) is to “leaven the outliers,” and “we reserve our 7(B) authority for exceptional cases.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 160 (Ind. 2019). “Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.” Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008)). Because we generally defer to the judgment of trial courts in sentencing matters, defendants must persuade us that their sentences are inappropriate. Schaaf v. State, 54 N.E.3d 1041, 1044-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

[3] Wadsworth concedes that his offenses were “disturbing” and focuses his argument on his character. Appellant's Br. pp. 8-9. He notes that he has no criminal history, he accepted responsibility by pleading guilty, he expressed sincere remorse, he was found to present a low risk of reoffending, he had a distinguished career in law enforcement, and he has strong support from family and friends. Wadsworth argues that, given these facts, his “9-year sentence” is inappropriate. Id. at 9.

[4] But Wadsworth's argument doesn't address two critical facts: (1) the executed portion of his sentence is much less than nine years and (2) he faced up to 18 years in the Department of Correction. He pled guilty to a Level 4 felony and a Level 5 felony. The sentencing range for a Level 4 felony is two to 12 years, with an advisory sentence of six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5. The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one to six years, with an advisory sentence of three years. I.C. § 35-50-2-6(b). The trial court imposed consecutive advisory terms, for a total of nine years, but suspended five of those years to probation. For Wadsworth's offenses, an executed sentence of four years—two years below the advisory for just the Level 4 felony—is by no means an “outlier.” The trial court found, and we agree, that an even lighter sentence would depreciate the seriousness of the offenses, especially given that Wadsworth is a former police officer who knew better than most that sharing child sex-abuse materials is a particularly egregious crime. Wadsworth has not persuaded us that his sentence is inappropriate.

[5] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Scheele, J., concur.