Scott Joseph Wheeler, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In 2025, Scott J. Wheeler pled guilty to committing Class C felony child molesting in 1985. Wheeler appeals the seven-year executed sentence imposed by the trial court, arguing that his “near maximum” sentence was both an abuse of discretion and inappropriate. Appellant's Brief at 10.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] In 1985, when Wheeler was twenty-one, he rented living space in a home in Lafayette, Indiana. While there, Wheeler met and befriended a twelve-year-old neighborhood boy (Victim) and his family. Wheeler and Victim spent time together in Wheeler's bedroom, which was in the home's basement and included a waterbed and a shelf of pornographic VHS tapes. On many occasions between July and December 1985, Wheeler initiated and engaged in sexual acts with Victim. Wheeler instructed Victim not to tell anyone. Victim eventually disclosed the abuse to his family in or around 1995.

[4] In 2024, Victim came forward with this information to the Lafayette Police Department (LPD), which launched an investigation into the matter. Detective Kurt Sinks conducted a telephonic interview with Victim, who was living out of state. After the interview, Detective Sinks obtained records from Victim's therapy sessions from 2017-2024 and contacted various individuals, including Victim's mother and sister, the homeowner where Wheeler lived in 1985, and some of Victim's friends to whom Victim had disclosed the abuse or who had been with Victim and Wheeler in Wheeler's basement. Detective Sinks also obtained Wheeler's employment records from Lafayette School Corporation, where he began working in 1987.

[5] In January 2025, Detective Sinks conducted a recorded interview (the Interview) at LPD headquarters with Wheeler. Wheeler was forthcoming with information and admitted to performing oral sex on Victim twenty to thirty times over a five-to-six-month period. Wheeler also admitted to subsequently engaging in sex acts with at least two other young males at a time when Wheeler was employed at Lafayette Jefferson High School (LJHS). Wheeler reported that, in 1997, he was asked to resign from LJHS. He began working for Purdue University in 2004. Based on information supplied by Wheeler, Detective Sinks conducted recorded phone interviews with additional individuals, including one of the then-LJHS students Wheeler named in the Interview.

[6] On March 5, 2025, the State charged Wheeler with four offenses involving Victim, occurring between July 23, 1985 and December 31, 1985: one count of Class C felony sexual gratification and three counts of Class C felony child molesting. On September 2, 2025, the parties appeared for a change of plea hearing. Wheeler pled guilty to one of the Class C felony counts, which alleged that Victim was between twelve and sixteen years of age when he performed or submitted to oral sex. Under the plea agreement, all remaining counts would be dismissed and sentencing was left to the discretion of the trial court.

[7] A sentencing hearing was held on November 7, 2025. Prior to the hearing, the trial court reviewed the presentence investigation report and letters from Victim, Victim's family, and Victim's fiancée. In addition, the court received and considered other materials submitted by the State, including the Interview with Detective Sinks and police reports “that were generated recently and also many years ago.” Transcript at 20. The court also considered a number of letters from Wheeler's family and acquaintances and a letter authored by Wheeler in which he acknowledged that he made “very serious mistakes” that he “deeply regret[ted],” apologized to the Victim and his family and friends, and accepted “full responsibility” for his actions. Confidential Appendix Vol. 3 at 80.

[8] At the hearing, Victim delivered a victim's impact statement, telling Wheeler “you have single handedly destroyed my life up until now” and explaining that, as a result of Wheeler's actions, Victim carried pain, shame, and embarrassment, suffered ruined relationships, and fought addictions “with pornography, drugs, alcohol and other things” for decades, in an effort to forget Wheeler and what he did. Transcript at 25. Victim related that, for years, Wheeler somehow managed to avoid getting caught and that, as a result, he had “been able to molest and assault others” whose names Victim “cannot discuss,” but offered that he was “here speaking for others” who were still struggling with trauma and guilt due to Wheeler's actions. Id. at 24, 26.

[9] Victim's sister also spoke, stating that Victim became “a different person” when the abuse started, although she did not understand why at the time. Id. at 27. She described that Victim's life was turbulent, he was distant from the family for years and avoided Lafayette, and only after therapy and rehabilitation was he now back in the family in a meaningful way. Victim's father expressed pride in Victim for his courage in his efforts to seek justice.

[10] Wheeler also gave a statement, acknowledging he made “a horrible mistake” that he “truly regret[ted]” and was taking full responsibility for his actions. Id. at 30. Wheeler's counsel offered mitigating factors, particularly Wheeler's admission to police, maintaining that, without it, the State would have encountered statute of limitations issues. Counsel urged that Wheeler's full cooperation “goes a long way to show you his [current] character.” Id. at 31. Counsel also emphasized Wheeler's minimal criminal history – one 2020 misdemeanor OWI conviction, a productive and consistent work history, Wheeler's age, and his community support.

[11] The State responded that, contrary to Wheeler's suggestion, “[t]his hasn't been forty years of good behavior” and, rather, included “grooming and predatory behavior” and an individual “who worked jobs around children.” Id. at 32. The State argued that Wheeler thus had not led a law-abiding life, he violated his bond conditions by consuming alcohol while on pretrial release in this case, and he molested Victim many times resulting in a devastating and long-lasting impact on Victim and his family.

[12] The trial court found as a significant aggravator that the impact on Victim was “profound” as “he's had to live with it for forty years,” as compared to those cases where the abuse is recognized and addressed closer in time to the offense. Id. at 37. The court identified as another significant aggravator that, while Wheeler had minor criminal history, he had not “led a law abiding life” based on the admission and investigation. Id. The court also found as additional aggravators that Wheeler molested Victim multiple times over a span of time and that he failed to follow rules of pretrial release by consuming alcohol. The trial court recognized as mitigating that Wheeler fully cooperated with police and “admitted to it all,” pled guilty, expressed remorse, engaged in voluntary work while this matter was pending, had only one prior misdemeanor conviction, and had strong family and community support. Id. at 38.

[13] Concluding that the aggravators outweighed the mitigators, the trial court sentenced Wheeler to seven years in the Indiana Department of Correction, all executed. Wheeler now appeals, asking us to revise his sentence to four years.

Discussion & Decision

[14] Wheeler asserts both that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to “take into account all of the relevant mitigating factors” and that the sentence was inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) based on his current character.¹ Appellant's Brief at 23. We address each in turn.

Abuse of Discretion

[15] “[S]entencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and are reviewed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218. An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. Reyes v. State, 909 N.E.2d 1124, 1127 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). A trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to issue a sentencing statement, gives reasons for imposing a sentence that are not supported by the record, omits reasons clearly supported by the record and advanced for consideration, or considers reasons that are improper as a matter of law. Higginson v. State, 209 N.E.3d 15, 25 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (citing Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 490-91).

[16] Wheeler argues that the trial court “failed to consider the significance of [ ] Wheeler's admissions,” which allowed the State to proceed with prosecution and allowed Victim and his family to gain some closure and healing. Appellant's Brief at 12. The trial court did, however, expressly find Wheeler's admission and cooperation to be a “significant” mitigating circumstance, stating “he did admit to this which I do believe has led to the conviction and led to some closure here and led to the ability to bring this [ ] forward to Court.” Transcript at 38. To the extent that Wheeler contends that the trial court should have given this more weight, the relative weight or value assignable to reasons found is not subject to review for abuse. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1223 (Ind. 2008) (citing Anglemyer); Higginson, 209 N.E.3d at 25 (“Because the trial court no longer has any obligation to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors against each other when imposing a sentence, a trial court cannot now be said to have abused its discretion in failing to properly weigh such factors.”).

[17] Wheeler also asserts that the trial court failed to consider “the mitigating factor that ‘the character and attitudes of the person indicate he is unlikely to commit another crime.’ ” Appellant's Brief at 17. Contrary to Wheeler's claim, the record reflects that the trial court did consider the likelihood that Wheeler might commit another crime. That is, at sentencing, the court found “troubling” that, because the sex offender registry came into existence after Wheeler committed his crime and was not applicable, “there's not going to be a good way to supervise him once he's released back out into the community” and “it gives me great concern that he would be out on the streets of our community without any supervision like the sexual registry.” Transcript at 40. From these statements of concern, it can reasonably be inferred that the court believed there was some likelihood of Wheeler, unsupervised, committing another crime.

[18] Wheeler also maintains that, given his success at completing probation in a prior OWI case, the trial court failed to consider that he would have responded affirmatively to probation or short-term imprisonment. Appellant’s Brief at 22. We disagree. The court addressed at sentencing that Wheeler violated the conditions of his pretrial release by consuming alcohol, which the court commented “doesn't sit [ ] well with me and it doesn't say a good thing for you if you can't follow the rules or regulations here.” Transcript at 38. The court's statements reflect that it indeed considered whether probation or short-term imprisonment would have been successful and appropriate.

[19] Wheeler also asserts that the trial court failed to consider “Mr. Wheeler's age at the time of the event in conjunction with his current age.” Appellant's Brief at 23. We are somewhat unclear on the meaning of this assertion. To the extent that Wheeler's suggestion is that the impact of his crime was lessened because it happened so many years ago, the record does not support that position and, to the contrary, shows that Victim and his family suffered for decades. To the extent that Wheeler is claiming that his age at sentencing, sixty-two, was a mitigating circumstance, he has not shown that, even if such could be considered mitigating, it was significant. See Hunter v. State, 72 N.E.3d 928, 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (“An allegation that the trial court failed to find a mitigating factor requires the defendant on appeal to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.”), trans. denied.

[20] In sum, we reject Wheeler's challenges pertaining to mitigators and discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court's sentencing of Wheeler.

Inappropriate Sentence

[21] Although a trial court may have acted within its discretion in imposing a sentence, the Indiana Constitution authorizes independent appellate review and revision of sentences through App. R. 7(B). King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). This rule 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.”

[22] Our review of a sentence under App. R. 7(B) is not an avenue for second guessing the trial court's sentence. Wilson v. State, 221 N.E.3d 667, 679 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). We do not determine whether another sentence is more appropriate but rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). 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). Relevant here, our analysis of the character of the offender involves a broad consideration of a defendant's qualities, including the defendant's age, criminal history, background, past rehabilitative efforts, and remorse. Wilson, 221 N.E.3d at 680. The defendant bears the burden of proving that his sentence is inappropriate. Conley, 972 N.E.2d at 876.

[23] When 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. Wilson, 221 N.E.3d at 679. The sentencing range for a Class C felony is two to eight years with an advisory sentence of four years. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6. In addition, the sentence may include a fine of $10,000. Wheeler was sentenced to seven years executed with a $5,000 fine.

[24] In claiming his sentence was inappropriate, Wheeler argues that “his current character does not [ ] warrant” his aggravated sentence.² Appellant's Brief at 11. In support, Wheeler points out that, when confronted by police about sexual activity with a minor in 1985, he “could have denied the crime, but instead he readily admitted it.” Id. He also authored and submitted a letter, expressing remorse and apologizing for his choices made decades ago. These actions, he asserts, showed wisdom and maturity of a sixty-two-year-old man who “sincerely repents his action” and “reflect [ ] his current character.” Id. at 12. Wheeler also emphasizes that he has only one prior conviction, a misdemeanor OWI in 2020, for which he successfully completed probation. Given these considerations, Wheeler maintains that the trial court should not have imposed “a nearly maximum sentence” – that is, seven of the possible eight years. Id. at 17.

[25] Wheeler has failed to persuade us that his character renders the sentence inappropriate. He met Victim, befriended him and his family, and gained their trust. He brought Victim to his basement bedroom, at first to work on bundling and delivering newspapers, but eventually exposed the pre-pubescent Victim to pornography, engaged in many sexual encounters with Victim over the span of months, and told Victim not to tell anyone. He then evaded responsibility for his actions with Victim for forty years, while by his own admission continued for at least some period of time to engage in sexual behavior with underage individuals. Wheeler has not presented compelling evidence to cast his character in a positive light, and we decline to modify Wheeler's seven-year executed sentence.

[26] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We agree with the State that Wheeler improperly “folded” an abuse of discretion argument into his inappropriateness argument, contrary to our Supreme Court's directive that the two are to be analyzed separately. Appellee's Brief at 12; King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (“As our Supreme Court has made clear, inappropriate sentence and abuse of discretion claims are to be analyzed separately.”).

2.   Wheeler does not make any challenge as to the nature of the offense.

Altice, Judge.

Vaidik, J. and Foley, J., concur.