Adam Andrew Metzger, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Adam Andrew Metzger appeals his sentence following his convictions for Level 5 felony possession of child pornography and Level 5 felony possession of child sex abuse material. Metzger presents five issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court committed fundamental error when it did not sua sponte correct alleged errors in the presentence investigation report (“PSI”).

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In August 2025, the State charged Metzger with Level 5 felony possession of child pornography and Level 5 felony possession of child sex abuse material. During plea negotiations, Metzger asked the trial court for a community corrections evaluation. A few weeks after the court ordered the evaluation, the Clark County Community Corrections Coordinator issued a letter stating that Metzger was “DENIED for Community Corrections based on the nature of the charges and that he does not have family or support in this area, [sic] there is potentially a flight risk.”¹ Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 36.

[4] On November 12, Metzger and the State filed a plea agreement with the trial court. Metzger pleaded guilty as charged, and the plea agreement left sentencing to the trial court's discretion but required that the sentences run concurrently. The PSI stated that Metzger's “overall risk assessment score [(“IRAS”)] puts [him] in the LOW risk category to reoffend.” Id. at 47. Metzger had no criminal history. However, the PSI also stated: “His overall [IRAS] score was low but due to the nature of his crimes and the age of the victims if granted probation, [he] should be listed as a moderate risk to the community.” Id.

[5] The trial court accepted Metzger's guilty plea. At sentencing, the trial court asked Metzger if he had had a chance to review the PSI. Metzger, by counsel, confirmed that he had reviewed it and that he had found only two errors: Metzger's wife's name was misspelled, and his two sisters were misidentified. Metzger's counsel then stated that there were no other changes or corrections to the PSI.

[6] The PSI recommended concurrent sentences of three years, with two years executed and one year suspended to probation. At sentencing, the State requested concurrent sentences of four years, with three years executed and one year suspended to probation. The trial court found one aggravating factor, namely, that Metzger's victim was less than twelve years old.² And the trial court found the following mitigating factors: Metzger's lack of any history of delinquent or criminal activity, and his cooperation with the investigation and acceptance of responsibility. The court then found that the aggravator outweighed the mitigators and ordered Metzger to serve four years, with three years executed and one year suspended to probation. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Metzger contends that the community corrections evaluation and his PSI were both erroneous, and he argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it relied on them at sentencing. Metzger also alleges that the court's reliance on the erroneous PSI violated his right to due process. However, as the State points out, Metzger raises these issues for the first time on appeal, and they are waived.³ See, e.g., Leonard v. State, 80 N.E.3d 878, 884 n.4 (Ind. 2017).

[8] Metzger argues, in the alternative, that “the errors in this case rise to the level of fundamental error.” Appellant's Br. at 14. As we have explained:

Fundamental error is an essential safety-valve doctrine that permits appellate courts to order relief due to an undeniable and substantial error that unfortunately slipped past the trial court; it is not a doctrine that exists to simply give appellants a chance to argue that some unpreserved error should nonetheless be reviewable on direct appeal.

Willoughby v. State, 244 N.E.3d 473, 476 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), trans. denied. Further:

Indeed, to demonstrate fundamental error, an appellant must show that the alleged error “made a fair trial impossible or constituted a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles of due process presenting an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.” Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 652 (Ind. 2018) (emphases added; quotation marks omitted). Fundamental error is “extremely narrow” and “encompasses only errors so blatant that the trial judge should have acted independently to correct the situation.” Id. (emphasis added; quotation marks omitted).

Bolcerek v. State, 255 N.E.3d 1206, 1215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied.

[9] In support of his argument, Metzger maintains that the trial court “relied on a PSI that incorporated (1) a Community Corrections determination based on an unauthorized categorical exclusion, and (2) a risk classification that deviated from an evidence-based assessment and was instead driven solely by the offense.” Appellant's Br. at 15. And he concludes that his sentence “was not the product of informed and lawful discretion, but of distorted inputs that deprived Metzger of a fundamentally fair proceeding.” Id.

Community Corrections Determination

[10] Metzger was determined to be ineligible for community corrections “based on the nature of the charges and that he does not have family or support in this area, [sic] there is potentially a flight risk.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 36. On appeal, Metzger mischaracterizes the reasons for his denial as “based solely on the nature of his offense,” ignoring the other reasons given. Appellant's Br. at 9 (emphasis added). And Metzger alleges that this determination was “unauthorized,” but he does not support that allegation with citation to relevant authority. Id.

[11] Metzger claims that “the legislature has expressly limited the circumstances under which placement in community corrections may be constrained” and cites Indiana Code section 35-38-2.6-3(b) in support. Id. at 9. But that statute merely provides that such placement “is subject to the availability of residential beds or electronic monitoring units.” I.C. § 35-38-2.6-3(b). There is no prohibition against considering the nature of an offense, as asserted by Metzger. Indeed, Indiana Code section 35-38-2.6-4.2(a) provides that “[a] community corrections program shall establish written procedures for determining if an offender is eligible for direct placement supervision under this chapter.” And Metzger has not shown that the Clark County Community Corrections Coordinator violated any such written procedure here. Metzger has not shown error, let alone fundamental error.

IRAS Score

[12] The PSI listed Metzger's “overall risk assessment score” as being in the “LOW risk category to reoffend.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 47. The PSI also stated: “His overall [IRAS] score was low but due to the nature of his crimes and the age of the victims if granted probation, [he] should be listed as a moderate risk to the community.” Id.

[13] Metzger argues that the finding of “moderate risk” was “not [based on] the application of an evidence-based tool. It was the substitution of a subjective, offense-driven judgment in place of that tool.” Appellant's Br. at 11. Again, Metzger does not support this bare assertion with citation to relevant authority. And, in any event, the probation officer who prepared the PSI recommended that the trial court sentence Metzger to three years, with two years executed and one year suspended to probation—a lighter sentence than Metzger ultimately received.

[14] Indeed, the trial court did not mention either Metzger's PSI or IRAS score at sentencing. Metzger brought it up and stated only that his IRAS score put him at a “low risk to reoffend.” Tr. p. 27. Further, the PSI states that Metzger's “overall risk assessment score” was a low risk to reoffend, but that “if granted probation [Metzger] should be listed as a moderate risk to the community” due to the nature of the offenses and age of the victims. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 47 (emphasis added). In other words, the “moderate” risk would only apply to a term of probation and not generally. We cannot say that any error was “so blatant that the trial judge should have acted independently to correct the situation.” Bolcerek, 255 N.E.3d at 1215 (emphasis removed).

Conclusion

[15] For all these reasons, we affirm Metzger's sentence.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Metzger was in the process of divorcing his wife at the time, and his family lives in Michigan.

2.   The probable cause affidavit described more than one victim less than twelve years old, but each count alleged only one victim less than twelve years old. See Tr. p. 26.

3.   Indeed, Metzger confirmed that he had reviewed the PSI and had only found non-material errors, and there is no dispute that Metzger had reviewed the reasons given for the community corrections denial prior to sentencing. Further, on appeal, Metzger does not contend that his sentence is illegal, which is an issue that a defendant may raise for the first time on appeal.

Mathias, Judge.

Kenworthy, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.