WILSON v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After pleading guilty to Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, Shania Wilson was sentenced by the trial court to an aggregate 180-day term of incarceration. Wilson argues that her sentence is inappropriate. Because we disagree, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On September 3, 2024, Decatur County Court Services conducted a field visit to Wilson's home, where they located a methamphetamine pipe and a clear plastic bag with residue inside. Wilson initially denied knowledge of the items found. The residue in the plastic bag tested positive for methamphetamine. Wilson had a prior conviction for Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent and, at the time, was on probation for a conviction for Level 6 felony theft.

[3] On September 4, 2024, Wilson was charged with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Wilson pled guilty as charged on July 28, 2025. Wilson's plea agreement provided that “[t]he parties agree that there shall be a cap of 180 days on the amount of time that may be ordered to be served executed in the Indiana Dep[artment] of Correction[ ] [(“DOC”)]” for the Level 6 felony and that her sentence for the Class C misdemeanor be a concurrent sentence of “50 days all executed to the Decatur County Jail.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 30.

[4] At the sentencing hearing on September 2, 2025, Wilson testified that she had two dependent children. She also testified that she had “recently” been involved with the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) and that she had completed two rounds of an intensive outpatient program and “passed all drug screens through DCS.” Tr. Vol. II pp. 13, 14. She testified that DCS had been screening her for approximately “six months to a year.” Tr. Vol. II p. 14.

[5] Wilson acknowledged that she had been on probation for her Level 6 felony theft conviction when she committed the instant offenses, and that the last time she had used methamphetamine was “right before [she] got arrested.” Tr. Vol. II p. 16. Wilson also testified that she had been “almost done” with probation at the time of the instant offenses. Tr. Vol. II p. 14.

[6] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found the following mitigating circumstances: (1) that, although “not early in the process,” Wilson had pled guilty, (2) that she had two children for which she is the caregiver, and (3) that she had been compliant with DCS when she had been involved in a DCS case. Tr. Vol. II p. 19. The trial court found Wilson's prior criminal history and the fact that she had violated the terms of her probation by committing the instant offenses to be aggravating circumstances. The trial court accepted Wilson's guilty plea and ordered her to serve 180 days in the DOC for the Level 6 felony conviction and imposed a concurrent fifty-day sentence for the Class C misdemeanor conviction.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Wilson contends that her aggregate 180-day sentence is inappropriate. Specifically, she contends that the trial court's order requiring her to execute the full term of her sentence in the DOC is inappropriate.¹

[8] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “[t]he 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.” In analyzing such claims, we “concentrate less on comparing the facts of [the case at issue] to others, whether real or hypothetical, and more on focusing on the nature, extent, and depravity of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced, and what it reveals about the defendant's character.” Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quotation omitted), trans. denied. The defendant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Sanchez v. State, 891 N.E.2d 174, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[9] The nature of the offense is “found in the details and circumstances of the commission of the offenses and the defendant's participation.” Croy v. State, 953 N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Furthermore, “we 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.” Norton v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1285, 1291 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (quotation and citation omitted).

[10] Wilson pled guilty to Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. The advisory sentence for a Level 6 felony is one year, with a range of six months to two and one-half years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7. For a Class C misdemeanor, a convicted person “shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than sixty (60) days; in addition, [s]he may be fined not more than five hundred dollars ($500).” Ind. Code § 35-50-3-4. Accordingly, Wilson faced a maximum potential sentence of two years and eight months, and by pleading guilty, she reduced her exposure to the minimum sentence permitted by law for her Level 6 felony conviction, 180 days.

[11] In challenging her 180-day sentence, which again was the minimum sentence permitted by law for her Level 6 felony conviction, Wilson contends that the nature of her offenses “did not warrant an executed sentence, rather the nature of the offense warranted rehabilitative services available through Community Corrections.” Appellant's Br. p. 10. “The location where a sentence is to be served is an appropriate focus for application of our review and revise authority.” King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citation omitted).

[I]t will be quite difficult for a defendant to prevail on a claim that the placement of his sentence is inappropriate. This is because the question under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. A defendant challenging the placement of a sentence must convince us that the given placement is itself inappropriate. As a practical matter, trial courts know the feasibility of alternative placements in particular counties or communities.

Id. at 267–68 (citations omitted).

[12] Wilson's placement in the DOC is not inappropriate considering the nature of her offenses. Wilson pled guilty to Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. While Wilson contends that the nature of her offense warrants a different placement because her actions “did not harm” others, we note that Wilson has two dependent children, and, at the time of these offenses, was on probation for another conviction. Despite these facts, Wilson decided to use methamphetamine. As the State notes, the trial court's agreement to Wilson's generous plea deal and the imposition of the minimum sentence “shows great leniency by the court.” Appellee's Br. p. 11.

[13] Wilson further contends that her character did not warrant the imposition of an executed sentence. We note that “[t]he character of the offender is found in what we learn of the offender's life and conduct.” Croy, 953 N.E.2d at 664. First, Wilson's criminal history reflects poorly on her character. See Madden v. State, 162 N.E.3d 549, 564 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (“A defendant's criminal history is one relevant factor in analyzing his or her character”). Wilson testified at the sentencing hearing that she had two prior convictions, one for Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent and one for Level 6 felony theft. She also testified that she had been on probation for the Level 6 felony theft when she committed the instant offenses. “Even a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendant's character.” Prince v. State, 148 N.E.3d 1171, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).

[14] While Wilson eventually pled guilty, she initially denied knowledge of the items found in her home which formed the basis for the instant offenses. Moreover, despite Wilson's argument that she had “demonstrated the intent and ability to carry through on rectifying [her substance abuse issue] with the assistance of treatment[,]” Appellant's Br. p. 10, we note that Wilson's admitted use of methamphetamine before she had been arrested for the instant offenses, i.e., while she had been on probation, demonstrated a general disregard of the law and failure to reform her behaviors. We agree with the State that Wilson's conduct showed a general disregard for the security of her children, which further speaks poorly of her character. Based on the foregoing, Wilson has failed to convince us that her character did not warrant imposition of an executed sentence, and, in light of the nature of her offenses and her character, Wilson has failed to convince us that her placement is inappropriate. See Sanchez, 891 N.E.2d at 176.

[15] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that Wilson's “Statement of Issues” frames the question on appeal as “[w]hether the trial court abused its discretion” in sentencing her but argues only that her sentence was inappropriate. Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a), “[e]ach contention must be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on.” To the extent that Wilson intended to argue that her sentence constituted an abuse of discretion, such argument is waived. See Smith v. State, 822 N.E.2d 193, 202–03 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (“Generally, a party waives any issue raised on appeal where the party fails to develop a cogent argument or provide adequate citation to authority and portions of the record.”), trans. denied.

Bradford, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.