Vaughn Reeves, Sr., Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Vaughn Reeves, Sr., appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for sentence modification. He asserts that the court abused its discretion. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 1989, Reeves started a company specializing in church bonds and, over the course of several years, he engaged in a church-bond sale “modified Ponzi scheme” using the Christian faith to appeal to investors. Reeves v. State, 923 N.E.2d 418, 419 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (appeal from trial court's denial of motion for reduction of bail). On June 30, 2009, the State charged Reeves with ten counts of aiding, inducing, or causing securities fraud as class C felonies. Following a jury trial on October 26, 2010, the jury found Reeves guilty of nine of the counts.

[3] The trial court held a sentencing hearing on December 7, 2010. The court found “as aggravating circumstances, that Reeves's crimes had 2904 victims; those victims lost $13,149,000 as of sentencing; the harm, injury, loss, or damages was greater than necessary to prove the crimes; Reeves generally targeted elderly victims at least sixty-five years old; and Reeves used religion and faith to entice his victims.” Reeves v. State, 953 N.E.2d 665, 669 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. The court found “as mitigating circumstances, Reeves's lack of a history of delinquent or criminal behavior, his expressed remorse, his cooperation with law enforcement, and the hardship his imprisonment would work on his wife.” Id. The court sentenced Reeves to six years of incarceration for each conviction, to be served consecutively, for a total of fifty-four years in the Department of Correction (the “DOC”). This Court affirmed Reeves's convictions and found that his sentence was not inappropriate on direct appeal. Id. at 673.

[4] On August 4, 2025, Reeves filed a petition for sentence modification. In support of a sentence modification, Reeves pointed to his “model behavior as an inmate” and his consistent completion of “behavior rehabilitation and educational courses” while in the DOC. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 133-134. He further argued that he is currently eighty years old, began experiencing serious heart conditions in 2022, and is now mostly confined to a wheelchair. Reeves attached to his petition his DOC Progress Report and other exhibits regarding his character, education, and accomplishments while incarcerated.

[5] The court held a hearing on November 7, 2025. Two of Reeves's grandchildren read statements to the court regarding Reeves's strong character and family connection, his daughter-in-law discussed his good conduct while incarcerated and offered to provide housing and assume financial responsibility for him if his sentence was modified, and one of Reeves's former parishioners stated that she thought he managed to maintain a “fine Christian attitude” during his incarceration. Transcript Volume II at 12. Reeves testified that he was currently incarcerated “at Putnamville,” that he had a heart attack while incarcerated, and had a medical device implanted. Id. at 13. He stated that he had completed two essays about his prison experience which expressed empathy for fellow inmates and also for the victims of his crimes. He testified that he worked in the suicide prevention program for about two years and that he led the “PLUS program” when he was housed at the Indiana State Prison. Id. at 16. Reeves stated that he did not know how many people lost money due to his crimes but claimed that his behavior was not motivated by “ill will.” Id. at 19.

[6] Defense counsel argued that the DOC had “maxed out [its] ability to reform” Reeves and that Reeves had “reached that full acceptance of responsibility ․ for the harm that was caused[.]” Id. at 22-23. Counsel argued that if released, Reeves could be “a positive influence” on a much larger community than just the incarcerated community. Id. at 23. Counsel stated, “[s]o we're asking the Court to consider a sentence modification ․ to time served” or to order “the balance of his executed term to be served in a home detention placement.” Id.

[7] The prosecutor argued that any current claim by Reeves that his original sentence was too harsh was invalid as determined by the trial court and this Court. The prosecutor argued that the decision to modify was a “subjective and discretionary” decision for the trial court and while he was “not going to make a specific recommendation,” he did “want to point out some things” for the court's consideration. Id. at 24. The prosecutor noted that his office had attempted to contact all of Reeves's victims but only received responses from three.¹ One of those victims supported sentence modification and the other two opposed it. The prosecutor guessed that “if [he] called them all, it would be a mixed response, which would probably be the more money people lost, the more they would probably want, you know, this not to be reduced.” Id. at 26. The prosecutor indicated, “I do think that the Court could justify the grant of modification in this case based upon his good conduct” but also “could justifiably deny this on the basis of what he did and the people he harmed [was] so egregious that it calls for this sentence.” Id.

[8] The trial judge addressed Reeves, observing that she was the judge in the original sentencing fifteen years earlier. The judge noted that she believed Reeves's current expression of “remorse,” as opposed to the apparent lack thereof during the original proceedings, was what she was focused on. Id. She reminded Reeves of “the gentleman who lost his money, and he couldn't afford his insurance, and he went blind, and he had lost everything.” Id. She observed that Reeves had “never acted like what you did affected these people” and that he was “arrogant and just downright cocky” as if he had not done “anything wrong.” Id. at 26-27. The judge noted that “here today you are coming across that maybe you are finally getting it” but there were still “some things” she wanted to see to convince her that he realized that his “actions affected other people.” Id. at 27-28. The judge stated that she would like to see the essays Reeves claimed to have written expressing his newfound remorse. The judge ended the hearing stating, “the Court's going to take your request under advisement, have you evaluated for home detention in Johnson County, give time for your attorney to get those [essays], and when I get all that, I'm going to make a decision[.]” Id. at 29.

[9] On February 13, 2026, the court issued a written order denying Reeves's petition. After noting the background and basis for the original sentence, the court stated:

2. On December 11, 2025[,] Defendant filed a Notice of Materials in Response to Request for Essay. Attached to the notice was a letter written by Defendant's brother and a letter authored by the Defendant. The Defendant's brother informed the Court the requested essays could not be obtained from the [DOC]. However, the Defendant submitted to the Court a one-page letter expressing his remorse for the crimes he committed and explaining his changed attitude. Reeves did mention the one victim the Court addressed at the modification hearing. It should be emphasized that he failed to address the other 2903 victims of his offenses.

3. The Court acknowledges the [DOC] is a difficult environment given Reeves[’s] advanced age and medical conditions. The Court has considered the enormous family support system Reeves has awaiting his release from incarceration and the family's strong desire for the Defendant to be released from the [DOC] immediately. However, the Court is not convinced the Defendant is truly remorseful or understands the financial devastation his numerous victims suffered from his criminal actions. Many of the letters attached to his petition for modification discussed his innocence not his remorse. The Defendant didn't provide the lengthy essays describing his empathy, instead he wrote a one-page letter that only detailed the one victim the Court discussed at his modification hearing. The Defendant has not thoroughly acknowledged that some of his elderly victims lost their entire savings and suffered profound consequences. After much consideration, the Court finds a sentence modification is not currently appropriate given the aggravating circumstances in this case.

4. Defendant's request for a sentence modification is denied.

Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 211.

Discussion

[10] Reeves challenges the court's denial of his petition for sentence modification. Generally, we review a trial court's decision to modify a sentence only for abuse of discretion. Gardiner v. State, 928 N.E.2d 194, 196 (Ind. 2010).² An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. Newman v. State, 177 N.E.3d 888, 891 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied.

[11] Here, based upon the evidence and testimony presented, the court did not find that Reeves's remorse was genuine or that he truly appreciated the financial devastation he caused to his almost three thousand victims. Although claiming remorse and empathy for his victims, Reeves maintained during the hearing that “if anyone thinks that I did this with any ill will, they're mistaken. That's not true.” Transcript Volume II at 19. We agree with the State that this comment regarding his lack of ill will speaks more to his “indifference” to the harm he caused as opposed to an understanding or acknowledgment of remorse for his criminal conduct. Appellee's Brief at 14. Moreover, as noted by the trial court, Reeves did not provide the court with his lengthy essays describing his empathy and instead wrote a one-page letter that detailed only the one victim the Court discussed at his modification hearing. In short, Reeves presented no testimony thoroughly acknowledging that some of his elderly victims lost their entire savings and suffered profound consequences. We cannot say that the court's conclusion that sentence revision was not appropriate in light of Reeves's lack of remorse and the egregiousness of his crimes is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.

[12] To the extent that Reeves suggests that the trial judge was subjectively biased against him with such bias “likely born from compassion” for the victims, Appellant's Brief at 13, we cannot say that reversal is warranted. The law presumes that a judge is unbiased and unprejudiced. Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591, 610 (Ind. 2001). A defendant asserting judicial bias must show that the trial judge's actions and demeanor showed partiality and prejudiced the case. Brown v. State, 746 N.E.2d 63, 71 (Ind. 2001). Bias is not proven from judicial rulings alone. Garland v. State, 788 N.E.2d 425, 433 (Ind. 2003). Other than baldly asserting bias, Reeves points to neither the trial court's actions nor demeanor to support this claim. Reeves has not demonstrated that the trial judge was biased against him.

[13] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's denial of Reeves's petition for sentence modification.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The prosecutor noted that “many of the people have died,” “the addresses weren't the same,” and “[a] lot of people didn't return the phone calls.” Transcript Volume II at 25-26.

2.   Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17(e) provides that a trial court “may reduce or suspend the sentence and impose a sentence that the court was authorized to impose at the time of sentencing” after a defendant has begun serving his sentence and the trial court has obtained a DOC progress report.

Brown, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur