Jerole Wayne Adams, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] A jury found Jerole Wayne Adams guilty of two counts of Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 3 felony dealing in cocaine, Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine, and Level 6 felony possession of a syringe. The jury also found him to be a habitual offender. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of fifty years executed. On appeal, Adams argues that his convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence and that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 11, 2024, a Dearborn County sheriff's deputy stopped a vehicle driven by C.J.F. and found several grams of methamphetamine in his vehicle. C.J.F. had “a child on the way” and did not want to go to jail, so he asked to talk with Detective Sergeant Adam Ziegler about becoming a confidential informant. Tr. Vol. 4 at 111. Detective Ziegler went to the scene of the traffic stop and talked with C.J.F., who mentioned Adams during their conversation. Adams had pleaded guilty to Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine in 2005, had been released to parole in November 2023, and was currently under surveillance for suspected narcotics trafficking between Dearborn County and Cincinnati, Ohio. C.J.F. had been to Adams's home and had done automotive work for his mother, who owned the home. C.J.F. knew that Adams lived in the basement and that his mother lived upstairs.

[3] The next day, December 12, Detective Ziegler asked C.J.F. to arrange a controlled buy of an eighth of an ounce of methamphetamine from Adams. C.J.F. made arrangements with Adams to purchase the methamphetamine for $60. The detective met C.J.F. and his girlfriend, who drove their vehicle, at the old town hall in Moores Hill, which was five minutes from Adams's home. Detective Ziegler and another officer searched C.J.F., his girlfriend, and their vehicle for contraband and cash, and the detective provided C.J.F. with $60 in prerecorded buy money and a wire to record the transaction.

[4] C.J.F. and his girlfriend went to Adams's home. C.J.F. entered the home through the basement. The methamphetamine had already been weighed out and placed in a baggie on a dresser in Adams's bedroom. C.J.F. gave Adams the $60. Detective Ziegler, who was monitoring the transaction from down the street, could hear Adams tell C.J.F., “I got you.” Tr. Vol. 3 at 55. C.J.F. returned to his vehicle and met Detective Ziegler at the old town hall, where he relinquished the methamphetamine that he had purchased.

[5] On December 18, C.J.F. arranged to purchase an ounce of methamphetamine from Adams for $300. The same pre-buy protocol was followed at the old town hall, and C.J.F. entered Adams's basement. Adams was on the phone when C.J.F. arrived, and C.J.F. had to weigh out the methamphetamine himself. He gave Adams $300 and returned to the old town hall, where Detective Ziegler retrieved the methamphetamine that he had purchased.

[6] Over the next month, C.J.F. contacted Adams “to find out when he would be resupplying[.]” Tr. Vol. 4 at 120. Detective Ziegler obtained a search warrant for a “GPS ping” on Adams's phone, pursuant to which his cell phone provider “sen[t] up that cell phone's location in a 15-minute interval[.]” Tr. Vol. 3 at 92.

[7] On January 31, 2025, using the GPS ping, Detective Ziegler tracked Adams as he traveled from Moores Hill to the Cincinnati area, where he made “frequent stops at different locations throughout the city.” Id. at 93. Adams then returned to Moores Hill. On February 1, the GPS ping showed Adams traveling west to Terre Haute, where he remained until the following day. On the afternoon of February 2, Detective Ziegler tracked “the pings ․ traveling east along I-70.” Id. at 94. The detective “felt that there was the possibility that there could be large amounts of narcotics coming back into Dearborn County[,]” so he obtained a search warrant for Adams's vehicle and residence. Id.

[8] Two sheriff's deputies stopped Adams's vehicle down the street from his home. Detective Ziegler asked Adams “if there was any illegal contraband in the vehicle.” Id. at 97. Adams denied possessing any contraband but claimed that he had “roughly $5,500” from the sale of another vehicle. Id. Adams later submitted a vehicle title purporting to document this transaction. His alleged signature on the title differs from that of his signature on other documents, and his first name is misspelled. Ex. Vol. at 85-88; Tr. Vol. 4 at 10-14. At the time of trial, the vehicle in question was still titled in Adams's name. Tr. Vol. 4 at 17.

[9] No drugs were found in Adams's vehicle. In the center console, officers found “five different bundles of money[,]” totaling $4,975, “held together by rubber bands[.]” Id. at 102. In Detective Ziegler's “training and experience as a narcotics investigator, this is actually very common when you're conducting drug sales to keep your money this way.” Id. at 106. The detective seized Adams's phone, which contained evidence of several Cash App transfers from third parties to Adams “close in time to January 31 to February 2nd[.]” Tr. Vol. 5 at 47.

[10] The officers then went to serve the search warrant on Adams's home and pounded on the basement entry door. Detective Ziegler heard running noises and “was worried that there could be possible evidence destruction[,]” so they forced their way into the home. Tr. Vol. 3 at 114. The detective heard a toilet flushing upstairs. The officers went upstairs and encountered Adams's mother and two other persons in the living room. Samantha Combs emerged from an adjacent bathroom, and she later admitted to flushing methamphetamine down the toilet. The officers found methamphetamine and cocaine on Combs's person, which Adams had given her two days earlier. On top of an air duct outside Adams's basement bedroom, the officers found “numerous baggies of suspected methamphetamine, suspected cocaine, syringes and well over 100 new and never used jewelry style sandwich bags[,]” which are commonly used to package drugs. Id. at 123. On February 9, Adams sent an acquaintance a text from jail that read, “U all need search all the ceailing down stairs fill atound never lnow what u might find[.]” Ex. Vol. at 71 (errors in original).

[11] The State charged Adams with two counts of Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine (based on the methamphetamine purchased during the December 18 controlled buy and the methamphetamine found in his home); Level 3 felony dealing in cocaine; Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine (based on the methamphetamine purchased during the December 12 controlled buy); and Level 6 felony possession of a syringe. The State also alleged that Adams was a habitual offender. The trial court held a jury trial in September 2025, during which Detective Ziegler, C.J.F., and Combs, among others, testified for the State. The jury found Adams guilty as charged and also found him to be a habitual offender.

[12] At sentencing, the trial court found no mitigating circumstances. As aggravating circumstances, the court cited Adams's extensive thirty-year criminal history, which “includes at least seven prior felonies, six prior misdemeanors” involving “crimes of violence, menacing and robbery, crimes against property, crimes against individuals, theft and burglary”; that Adams had committed the instant offenses shortly after being released to parole for a forty-year sentence for Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine; and that Adams had failed to respond positively to lenient sentencing alternatives, including probation and in-home incarceration, and was likely to reoffend. Tr. Vol. 6 at 110, 111. The court imposed maximum thirty-year sentences on both Level 2 felony convictions, a maximum sixteen-year sentence on the Level 3 felony conviction, a maximum twelve-year sentence on the Level 4 felony conviction, and a maximum two-and-one-half-year sentence on the Level 6 felony conviction, all executed. The court ordered the sentences to run concurrently and enhanced the sentence for one of the Level 2 felony convictions by the maximum twenty-year term for a habitual offender finding, for an aggregate sentence of fifty years. Adams now appeals his convictions and his sentence.

Discussion and Decision

Issue One: Sufficiency of Evidence

[13] Adams challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the conviction. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not assess witness credibility or reweigh the evidence. Id. We affirm the conviction unless “no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 2000)). “On appeal, it is not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Morales v. State, 227 N.E.3d 183, 188 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), trans. denied.

[14] Adams's attack on his convictions resulting from his two methamphetamine sales to C.J.F. is, at bottom, an invitation to reassess C.J.F.’s credibility. This we may not do. And his attack on his remaining convictions is best characterized as an argument that he did not constructively possess the methamphetamine, cocaine, and syringes found on top of the air duct outside his basement bedroom. But he cites no authority to support this argument, so we find it waived. Whitfield v. State, 127 N.E.3d 1260, 1268 n.5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied.

[15] Waiver notwithstanding, we note that, “to prove constructive possession, the State must show that the defendant has both (1) the intent to maintain dominion and control and (2) the capability to maintain dominion and control over the contraband.” Goliday v. State, 708 N.E.2d 4, 6 (Ind. 1999). “To prove the intent element, the State must demonstrate the defendant's knowledge of the presence of the contraband.” Id. Adams's text from jail demonstrates his knowledge of the presence of contraband near the basement ceiling, and there is no indication that anyone else was aware of its presence. Proof of a possessory interest in the premises on which contraband is found is adequate to show the capability to maintain dominion and control over the contraband, and this is so whether the person is an owner or a tenant and “whether possession of the premises is exclusive or not.” Gee v. State, 810 N.E.2d 338, 340-41 (Ind. 2004). Here, Adams was a tenant in his mother's home, and thus he had the capability to maintain dominion and control over the contraband. In sum, Adams's convictions are supported by sufficient evidence, so we affirm them.

Issue Two: Appropriateness of Sentence

[16] Adams also asks us to reduce his sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that this “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.” Our “role under Rule 7(B) is to ‘leaven the outliers,’ and we reserve our 7(B) authority for exceptional cases.” Livingston v. State, 113 N.E.3d 611, 613 (Ind. 2018) (per curiam) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008)). This is not an exceptional case.

[17] Indiana's flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor a sentence appropriate to the circumstances presented, and “the trial court's judgment should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. 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). “In the end, ‘the length of the aggregate sentence and how it is to be served are the issues that matter.’ ” Wright v. State, 168 N.E.3d 244, 268 (Ind. 2021) (quoting Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224). It is Adams's burden to establish that his sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review. Konkle v. State, 253 N.E.3d 1068, 1092 (Ind. 2025).

[18] Regarding the nature of his offenses, Adams contends that they “did not include any action that caused harm or threatened to cause harm to other individuals.” Appellant's Br. at 23. To be sure, two of his convictions were based on his sales of methamphetamine to C.J.F., who turned the drugs over to Detective Ziegler. But the evidence presented at trial established that Adams was running a drug-trafficking ring that stretched from Cincinnati to Terre Haute and that he was selling both methamphetamine and cocaine out of his mother's home in Moores Hill. Both drugs are well-documented societal scourges. C.J.F. testified that he was a methamphetamine addict, and the evidence strongly suggested that Combs, who lived in Adams's home, was also an addict. In addition to the drugs, Adams possessed syringes, which Detective Ziegler testified are used “[t]o inject illegal narcotics into a human body.” Tr. Vol. 3 at 133. Clearly, Adams had no regard for the multiple customers who purchased and used his addictive and potentially lethal products. Adams has failed to establish that the nature of his offenses warrants a sentence reduction.

[19] As for Adams's character, he emphasizes that he “had obtained his GED and multiple vocational certifications” and was “recently employed by Fortis Security where he assembled and manufactured deal drawers and safes” as a “shift foreman, earning $22.50 an hour.” Appellant's Br. at 23. This begs the question of why Adams chose to return to a life of crime so soon after being paroled for a drug-dealing conviction. Adams also observes that both he and his mother are in poor health, but he should have taken this into consideration before he fell back into his old habit of dealing narcotics.¹

[20] “When considering a defendant's character, [his] criminal history is relevant.” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1249 (Ind. 2024). Even a minor criminal history reflects poorly on a defendant's character for sentencing purposes. Brook v. State, 221 N.E.3d 1239, 1256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied. As indicated above, Adams's criminal history is anything but minor.² Adams, who was born in 1975, was adjudicated a delinquent in 1992 for battery and criminal mischief in Dearborn County. That same year, he was waived to adult court in Butler County, Ohio, for robbery and rape; no disposition was entered for the rape offense. Adams was sentenced in 1993 for felony robbery and misdemeanor carrying a concealed weapon in Butler County, was granted shock probation, and was discharged from probation in 1998. Adams racked up convictions for other minor offenses in Ohio, including no operator's license and multiple incidents of theft. In 2000, he was convicted of Class B felony burglary and multiple counts of theft in multiple cases in Dearborn County. One year later, he was convicted of receiving stolen property. Finally, in 2005, Adams pleaded guilty to Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine, which resulted in the forty-year sentence that he was serving on parole when he committed the instant offenses; notably, a habitual offender enhancement was dismissed in that case.

[21] As the trial court in this case succinctly put it: “[I]f a previous 40-year sentence did not deter [Adams] from dealing illegal drugs [then] what will?” Tr. Vol. 6 at 115. Adams himself has conclusively demonstrated that the answer to that question is “nothing.” In sum, he has failed to establish that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Therefore, we affirm it.

[22] Affirmed.

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

FOOTNOTES

1.   Additionally, Adams claims that “[t]he majority of [his] criminal history was related to drug and alcohol abuse.” Appellant's Br. at 23. When he was interviewed for the presentence investigation report, Adams denied being an alcoholic. Appellant's App. Vol. 3 at 119. And at the sentencing hearing, the trial court rejected his claim that he was a drug addict: “The Defendant was frequently drug tested while on parole, all these tests were negative. Even Defendant's associates testified that he was not a user. The Court finds that the Defendant is not a drug addict. Defendant is a professional lifetime drug dealer.” Tr. Vol. 6 at 116.

2.   Adams asserts that “Indiana Courts have routinely recognized the principle that the maximum sentence enhancement permitted by law should be reserved for the very worst offenses and offenders[,]” and he suggests that he is not one of the worst offenders. Appellant's Br. at 22 (citing Brown v. State, 760 N.E.2d 243, 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)). The trial court disagreed, Tr. Vol. 6 at 120, as do we.

Bailey, Judge.