Ethan J. Walls, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] After a jury had convicted Ethan Walls (“Walls”) of Level 4 felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon,¹ Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe,² and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy,³ the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of eight (8) years. On appeal, Walls argues that: (1) there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Level 4 felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon; and (2) his sentence is inappropriate. Concluding that: (1) there is sufficient evidence to support Walls’ conviction; and (2) Walls has failed to show that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issues

1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support Walls’ conviction for Level 4 felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

2. Whether Walls’ sentence is inappropriate.

Facts

[3] In July 2024, Walls’ former wife, Angel (“Angel”), obtained a protective order that prohibited Walls from directly or indirectly communicating with her and “excluded” him from her residence for two years. (Ex. Vol. 1 at 4). Six months later, on January 4, 2025, forty-year-old Walls, who had knowledge of the protective order, injected methamphetamine, borrowed his mother's car (“mother's car”), and drove five hours from southern Indiana to Angel's residence in Fort Wayne.

[4] When Walls arrived in Fort Wayne, he parked mother's car across the street from Angel's house and injected more methamphetamine. Thereafter, Walls drove mother's car into Angel's driveway, parked next to the side door of her house, telephoned her, and threatened to commit suicide. Angel called 911 and told the dispatcher that Walls was threatening to kill himself and that he had a gun (“the 911 call”). Further, Angel specifically told the dispatcher that she had seen the gun.

[5] Law enforcement officers were dispatched to Angel's house. Officer David Jackson (“Officer Jackson”) spoke with Angel, who told him that Walls had in his possession a silver gun with a black handle. Officer Cade Hetrick (“Officer Hetrick”) removed Walls from his car and placed him in a police car. When Officer Hetrick returned to Walls’ car, he noticed under the front driver's seat a silver firearm with a black handle. Based on Officer Hetrick's training and experience, the placement of the firearm, with the barrel of the firearm “facing to the rear of the car[,]” led him to believe that the person sitting in the driver's seat had placed the firearm under the seat. (Tr. Vol. 1 at 185). A further search of the vehicle revealed twenty-two syringes scattered throughout it.

[6] Two days later, the State charged Walls with Level 4 felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe, and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.⁴ Walls was incarcerated in the county jail pending his trial.

[7] A few days before the trial, Walls telephoned Angel from the jail (“the jail telephone call”). During the jail telephone call, Angel told Walls that the prosecutor had come to her house and had told her that he expected her to attend the trial. Walls told Angel to “just stick to the written statement.” (Supp. Ex. Vol. 1, Ex. 17 at 1:50-1:52). Walls then asked Angel what she had told the prosecutor. Angel responded that she had told him in her statement that she had not seen anything, just as Walls had told her to do. Walls told Angel not to “say that on here.” (Supp. Ex. Vol. 1, State's Ex. 17 at 2:14-2:15)

.

[8] The jury heard the facts as set forth above during the trial. In addition, the jury listened to recordings of the 911 call and the jail telephone call. Further, Angel testified that, on January 4, 2025, she had not: (1) seen Walls in possession of a firearm; (2) told the 911 dispatcher that she had seen a firearm in Walls’ possession; or (3) told Officer Jackson that Walls had possessed a firearm.

[9] In addition, Walls’ mother testified that the gun found in her car belonged to her and that she had not known that the gun was in the car when she had lent the car to Walls. Walls also testified. Specifically, Walls acknowledged that he had: (1) used methamphetamine before leaving southern Indiana; (2) used methamphetamine when he had arrived in Fort Wayne; (3) violated the protective order; and (4) unlawfully possessed a syringe. Walls further acknowledged that he was considered to be a serious violent felon and that he was not permitted to possess a firearm. In addition, Walls testified that he had not known that the gun was in mother's car. According to Walls, had he known that the firearm was in mother's car, he would have asked his mother to remove it before he had left for Fort Wayne.

[10] The jury convicted Walls of the three charged offenses. At Walls’ September 2025 sentencing hearing, the trial court reviewed Walls’ pre-sentence investigation report, which revealed that Walls has a twenty-year multi-county criminal history, including six felony and six misdemeanor convictions. Specifically, Walls has felony convictions for Class D felony resisting law enforcement, Level 5 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 6 felony domestic battery, Level 5 felony neglect of a dependent, Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, and Level 6 felony domestic battery. Walls also had a pending charge for Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe and was out on bond when he committed the offenses in this case. Further, Walls has four Class A misdemeanor convictions for driving while suspended as well as Class A misdemeanor convictions for battery and conversion. Walls also has a history of violating the terms and conditions of his probation.

[11] The trial court found Walls’ lengthy criminal history, his prior failed attempts at rehabilitation, and the fact that he was out on bond when he committed the offenses in this case to be aggravating factors. Further, the trial court did not find any mitigating factors. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Walls to eight (8) years for the Level 4 felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon conviction, two (2) years for the Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe conviction, and one (1) year for the Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy conviction. Further, the trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently with each other, for an aggregate sentence of eight (8) years to be served in the Department of Correction (“the DOC”).

[12] Walls now appeals.

Decision

[13] Walls argues that: (1) there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Level 4 felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon; and (2) his sentence is inappropriate. We address each of his contentions in turn.

1. Sufficiency of the Evidence

[14] Walls first argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Level 4 possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. We disagree.

[15] “Our standard for reviewing evidentiary sufficiency challenges is well established, as we have made clear that it is the fact-finder's role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction.” Konkle v. State, 253 N.E.3d 1068, 1090 (Ind. 2025) (cleaned up). “A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (cleaned up). We review only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom and will reverse “only where it is shown that no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 1090-91 (cleaned up).

[16] Indiana Code § 35-47-4-5(c) provides that “[a] serious violent felon who knowingly or intentionally possesses a firearm commits unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony.” Walls does not dispute that he qualified as a serious violent felon. Instead, he asserts that the State failed to establish that he actually or constructively possessed a firearm.

[17] A conviction for possession of a firearm may rest upon proof of either actual or constructive possession. Cruz v. State, 218 N.E.3d 632, 639 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied. Actual possession occurs when a person has direct physical control over a firearm. Id. Constructive possession requires a showing that the defendant had both the intent and the capability to maintain dominion and control over the firearm. Id.

[18] Here, our review of the evidence most favorable to the judgment reveals that Angel told the 911 operator that Walls possessed a gun and that she had seen it. Further, Angel told Officer Jackson that Walls had a silver gun with a black handle in his possession. Officer Hetrick found a silver gun with a black handle under the driver's seat of the car that Walls was driving. According to Officer Hetrick, based on his training and experience, the placement of the gun led him to believe that the driver of the car had placed the gun beneath the driver's seat. Further, Walls was the driver and sole occupant of the car. Based upon this evidence, the jury could have easily determined that Walls had direct physical control over the firearm and, therefore, actually possessed it. See id.

[19] Having concluded that the State presented sufficient evidence of actual possession, we need not address whether it also proved constructive possession. However, we note that “constructive possession of items found in an automobile may be imputed to the driver of the vehicle.” Cruz, 2018 N.E.3d at 639 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, imputation of constructive possession in Walls’ situation is particularly compelling because he was not just the driver of mother's car but its sole occupant. See id. Walls’ argument that he did not know that the handgun was in the car when he borrowed the car from Mother is simply a request to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Konkle, 253 N.E.3d at 1090. As a result, the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's finding that Walls possessed the firearm, and we affirm his conviction for Level 4 felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. See Cruz, 218 N.E.3d at 639.

2. Inappropriate Sentence

[20] Walls also argues that his eight (8) year aggregate sentence is inappropriate. He specifically asks this Court to “modify his sentence to a sentence appropriate for his character, and the nature of the offenses[.]” (Walls’ Br. 20).

[21] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, we find that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. The defendant bears the burden of persuading this Court that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate turns on the “culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). Further, sentence modification under Rule 7(B) is reserved for a “rare and exceptional case.” Skeens v. State, 191 N.E.3d 916, 923 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (cleaned up).

[22] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge that the advisory sentence is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. Here, a jury convicted Walls of Level 4 felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe, and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. The sentencing range for a Level 4 felony is between two (2) and twelve (12) years, and the advisory sentence is six (6) years. See I.C. § 35-50-2-5.5. The sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is between six (6) months and two and one-half (21/212) years, and the advisory sentence is one (1) year. I.C. § 35-50-2-7(b). The maximum sentence for a Class A misdemeanor is one (1) year. I.C. § 35-50-3-2.

[23] The trial court sentenced Walls to eight (8) years for the Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon conviction, two (2) years for the Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe conviction, and one (1) year for the Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy conviction. Further, the trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently with each other, for an aggregate sentence of eight (8) years to be served in the DOC. This eight-year sentence is well below the maximum sentence that the trial court could have imposed.

[24] With regard to the nature of the offenses, we note that six months after Angel obtained a protective order prohibiting Walls from contacting her, Walls drove from southern Indiana to her house in Fort Wayne. Before making the five-hour drive to Fort Wayne, Walls injected methamphetamine. Further, when he arrived in Fort Wayne, Walls injected more methamphetamine and then threatened to commit suicide with a gun that he knew that he was not permitted to possess. When law enforcement officers arrived at the scene, they found Walls parked in the driveway next to the side door of Angel's house. A search of the vehicle revealed the gun as well as twenty-two syringes.

[25] With regard to his character, we note that Walls has a twenty-year multi-county criminal history that includes six felony and six misdemeanor convictions. He also has a history of violating the terms and conditions of his probation. Indeed, Walls was out on bond for a pending Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe charge when he committed the same offense in this case. Walls’ former contacts with the law have not caused him to reform himself. See Jenkins v. State, 909 N.E.2d 1080, 1086 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied.

[26] Based on the nature of the offenses and his character, Walls has failed to persuade this Court that his eight (8) year aggregate sentence is inappropriate. We further note that this is simply not one of those rare and exceptional cases for which a sentence modification under Rule 7(B) is reserved. Therefore, we affirm Walls’ sentence.

[27] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5.

2.   Ind. Code § 16-42-19-18.

3.   I.C. § 35-46-1-15.1.

4.   The State also charged Walls with Level 5 felony unlawful carrying of a handgun. However, the State later filed a motion to dismiss that charge, which the trial court granted.

Pyle, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.