Dana Louise Wombles, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Dana Louise Wombles challenges her sentence for possession of methamphetamine, as a Level 6 felony. She claims her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and her character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On December 12, 2023, law enforcement responded to a wellness check about an unconscious passenger in a vehicle at a truck stop in the town of New Point. The vehicle, however, fled the scene; law enforcement gave chase and stopped it. The unconscious individual was later identified as Wombles. The responding officers found methamphetamine, marijuana, and another controlled substance on her person. On December 13, 2023, the State charged Wombles with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, Class A misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

[4] Prior to the events of December 12, 2023, Wombles had already incurred multiple criminal convictions; she had two Level 6 felony convictions for theft in 2015, a Level 6 felony conviction for unlawful possession or use of a legend drug in 2018, and a Level 6 felony conviction for unlawful possession of a syringe in 2023. The State filed a habitual offender enhancement, alleging she was a habitual offender based on four prior felony convictions. She also had a pending case with an alleged habitual offender enhancement in Decatur County. Moreover, Wombles has a history of probation violations and was actively on probation at the time of the instant offense.

[5] On October 6, 2025, Wombles pleaded guilty to the Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine charge, pleading “open” and leaving sentencing to the trial court's discretion. Tr. Vol. II at 74. In exchange for her guilty plea, the State dismissed the remaining two counts and the habitual offender enhancement allegation. On November 24, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. Wombles failed to appear at the sentencing hearing, and the trial court issued a warrant to secure her appearance. Wombles had also failed to attend a pretrial conference on April 2, 2025, and had failed to appear on six separate occasions in prior cases. Wombles cited car trouble as her reason for not attending the hearing on April 2 but testified at the sentencing hearing that her failure to appear had been due to medical concerns. Wombles testified that she had not missed court appearances but, when asked about her six prior failures to appear, stated she could not remember due to her brain injury.

[6] Wombles testified that she suffered from hepatitis C, cirrhosis, and an autoimmune disease, the latter of which could result in a coma or seizures if improperly treated. Wombles testified that when she had previously been at the Marion County Jail, jail officials had given her the incorrect medication, and it had resulted in a coma.

[7] At the conclusion of evidence and argument, the trial court accepted the plea and found Wombles guilty of Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine. The trial court, citing Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-7.1(a)(2) and (a)(6), found that her criminal history and record of recent pre- and post-trial violations were proper aggravating factors. The trial court found her guilty plea to be a mitigating factor. The trial court sentenced her to two years executed at the Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Appellate Rule 7(B)

[8] Wombles contends that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and her character. Article 7, Sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution “authorize[ ] independent appellate review and revision of a sentence imposed by the trial court.” Roush v. State, 875 N.E.2d 801, 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (alteration in original). This appellate authority is implemented through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Id. Before we may revise a sentence, the appellant must demonstrate that her sentence is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B); see also Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

[9] Indiana's flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court's judgment “should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008). The principal role of appellate review is to attempt to “leaven the outliers.” Id. at 1225. Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate at the end of the day turns on “our sense of 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.” Id. at 1224. The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] 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).

[10] In determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, the advisory sentence “is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1081 (Ind. 2006). For a Level 6 felony conviction, the sentencing range is between six months and two and one-half years, with an advisory sentence of one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). Clearly, Wombles’ sentence of two years falls within that range.

[11] When considering the nature of the offense, we look at the defendant's actions in comparison to the elements of the offense. Cannon v. State, 99 N.E.3d 274, 280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. One factor we consider is “whether there is anything more or less egregious about the offense as committed by the defendant that makes it different from the typical offense accounted for by the legislature when it set the advisory sentence.” Moyer v. State, 83 N.E.3d 136, 142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted), trans. denied. Here, while having a pending criminal charge and being actively on probation from a previous conviction, Wombles committed the current criminal offense: possession of methamphetamine. We find nothing in the nature of the offense that suggests the sentence was inappropriate.

[12] Nor does Wombles’ character warrant a sentence reduction. Analysis of an offender's character “involves a broad consideration of [her] qualities, life, and conduct.” Crabtree v. State, 152 N.E.3d 687, 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied.¹ Wombles has an extensive criminal history, including four prior Level 6 felony convictions, which does not reflect well upon her character. Wombles also has a history of probation violations and six prior failures to appear for court dates. Additionally, Wombles missed a pretrial conference and a sentencing hearing for this case, and a warrant was issued for her failure to appear. Wombles cites no evidence that she has “substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character.” Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122. Wombles has failed to demonstrate that her sentence is inappropriate in light of her character.

Conclusion

[13] Wombles’ sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of her offense and her character.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Wombles seems to claim that her health concerns should be assessed as a part of her character; however, she has failed to cite legal authority in which we have considered health concerns in our analysis of character in a Rule 7(B) review. We see no reason to do so now.

Bailey, Judge.

Brown, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.