Tre Shawn Bowling, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] More than six years after Tre Shawn Bowling strangled and raped a twenty-three-year-old woman (the victim) outside her Bloomington apartment, he pled guilty to Level 3 felony rape. The plea agreement left Bowling's sentence to the trial court's discretion, and after hearing the parties’ arguments, the court sentenced him to fifteen years in the Department of Correction (DOC). He now appeals his sentence, arguing: (1) the court failed to consider several mitigating factors; and (2) his sentence should be revised under Appellate Rule 7(B). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] At approximately 11 p.m. on April 29, 2019, the victim was walking home from CVS in Bloomington when she noticed an unknown man, later identified as Bowling, following her. As the victim approached the steps outside her apartment complex, Bowling came up behind her, grabbed her around the neck, and started to choke her. She tried to fight back, but she quickly lost consciousness. When she came to a few moments later, Bowling was dragging her by the neck up the front steps of the apartment building and into its stairwell. He whispered in her ear that he would release her if she promised to be a “good girl.” Transcript at 54. Bowling then forced the victim onto her hands and knees, pulled down her pants, and began to lick her vagina. He eventually inserted his penis into her vagina and when the victim started to cry, Bowling started to thrust faster and repeatedly told her to be quiet. At some point, he stopped and left the victim in the stairwell.

[3] The victim went to her apartment where her husband called the police. At the hospital, she underwent a sexual assault forensic examination. The forensic nurse documented the victim's numerous injuries: petechiae ¹ under one of her eyes, red marks on her neck, abrasions and redness on her knees, a broken fingernail, and an abrasion on her vaginal opening. She also lost her voice for over a month from the strangulation. DNA swabs showed sperm fractions on the victim's internal genitalia, external genitalia, anus, and vaginal/cervical area. The DNA was entered into the FBI DNA tracking system (CODIS)² , but law enforcement was unable to identify Bowling as the perpetrator at that time.

[4] In March 2020, there was a “CODIS hit” on Bowling's DNA. Id. at 42. Specifically, DNA collected from another victim in May 2019 for a different rape case that occurred in Indianapolis matched the DNA obtained in this case. However, at that point, law enforcement was still unable to identify Bowling as the perpetrator. Then in January 2022, there was another CODIS DNA match, this time connected to yet another Indianapolis rape case that had occurred in September 2021. Bowling was identified as the perpetrator in that matter and taken into custody, which allowed Bloomington law enforcement to locate him, obtain a buccal swab, and identify him as the perpetrator in the instant case.

[5] The State charged Bowling with two counts of Level 1 felony rape, two counts of Level 3 felony rape, one count of Level 3 felony kidnapping, and one count of Level 6 felony strangulation. He pled guilty to one count of Level 3 felony rape in October 2025.³ The plea agreement granted the court discretion as to the length of Bowling's sentence and where it would be served but specified that the sentence would be consecutive to Bowling's sentences in the other two rape cases.

[6] The sentencing hearing was held on April 14, 2026. Bowling testified first and detailed the struggles he experienced throughout his childhood: he was kicked out of the house when he was thirteen, witnessed significant violence during his teen years, and was physically and sexually abused. Jeffrey Rodgers, the lead detective on the case, also testified. He explained the years-long investigation and eventual identification of Bowling as the perpetrator. The victim did not attend the hearing, but the State read her written statement into the record in which she described the attack and the effect it had on her life. The victim's husband submitted a written statement as part of the presentence investigation report reiterating the difficulty the victim experienced as a result of the attack.

[7] Bowling asked the trial court to impose a nine-year advisory sentence executed in the DOC. He argued the court should consider as mitigators his difficult childhood and that he was only twenty years old at the time of the rape. Bowling also asked that the court give his two other convictions less weight because they happened after this offense. The State asked the court to sentence Bowling to the sixteen-year maximum in the DOC. It argued there were several aggravating factors warranting the maximum sentence, including: (1) the harm, injury, loss, or damage suffered by the victim was significant and greater than the elements necessary to prove the commission of the offense; (2) his criminal history; (3) his sexual misconduct while incarcerated; and (4) the significant benefit he received from the plea agreement, noting that the maximum sentence for a Level 1 felony is forty years.

[8] The trial court acknowledged Bowling “had a hard life” and was “a child when some of those things ․ happened.” Id. at 65-66. However, it agreed with the aggravators noted by the State, particularly the significant harm the victim suffered because of the crime. Ultimately, the court sentenced Bowling to fifteen years in the DOC to be served consecutively to the sentences for his other rape convictions. Bowling now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

1. Bowling has failed to prove the trial court abused its sentencing discretion.

[9] Bowling argues “[t]he trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider the extent of [the] mitigating evidence” he offered at the sentencing hearing. Appellant's Brief at 9 (emphasis added). Sentencing decisions are within the sound discretion of the trial court and are subject to appellate review only for an abuse of discretion. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), modified on other grounds on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). A trial court can abuse its discretion in many ways, including by: (1) failing to enter a sentencing statement; (2) citing an aggravating or mitigating factor that is not supported by the record; (3) failing to cite factors the record clearly supports; or (4) relying on reasons for imposing a sentence that are improper as a matter of law. Id. at 490-91.

[10] The crux of Bowling's argument is not that the trial court failed to consider his difficult childhood a mitigating factor, but that it didn't give that factor enough weight. However, because the court was not required to weigh mitigators and aggravators, it could not “have abused its discretion in failing to ‘properly weigh’ ” them. Id. at 491. And in fact, the court expressly acknowledged Bowling's childhood struggles, noting that life had “been particularly unfair to [him]” Tr. at 65. Bowling has thus failed to prove the court abused its sentencing discretion.

2. Bowling has failed to prove his sentence was inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B).

[11] Next, Bowling argues his sentence is inappropriate and asks us to revise it pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). However, Bowling's arguments in this section of his brief focus almost entirely on mitigating factors rather than the nature of his offense and his character. This Court has repeatedly recognized that Rule 7(B) review and challenges to the trial court's acknowledgment or rejection of aggravating and mitigating factors “are distinct [claims] and are to be analyzed separately.” Merriweather v. State, 151 N.E.3d 1281, 1285 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020); see also Turkette v. State, 151 N.E.3d 782, 786 n.4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (“[A]ppellate review under Rule 7(B) is not a review of the trial court's consideration of aggravators and mitigators[.]”), trans. denied. Consequently, “inappropriate sentence argument[s] [are] waived ․ when the defendant claims to be making a 7(B) argument but instead asserts the trial court erred in its identification or weighing of aggravators and mitigators[.]” Connor v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 219 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

[12] Waiver notwithstanding, under Rule 7(B), we may revise a defendant's sentence “if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, [we] find[ ] that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” We grant considerable deference to the trial court's sentencing decision. Wilson v. State, 221 N.E.3d 667, 679 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). “Ultimately, we rely on our ‘collective judgment as to the balance’ of all the relevant considerations involved, which include ‘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.’ ” Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 122 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224, 1226 (Ind. 2008)). It is the defendant's burden to prove his sentence is inappropriate. Littlefield v. State, 215 N.E.3d 1081, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied.

[13] We begin by looking at the advisory sentence for the relevant offense. Id. Bowling pled guilty to Level 3 felony rape, for which he faced a sentencing range of three to sixteen years, with an advisory sentence of nine years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5(b) (2014). He was sentenced to fifteen years, one year below the maximum. With this in mind, we turn to the nature of Bowling's offense and his character.

[14] Bowling presents no argument as to why his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense. And the record shows his actions warranted a sentence above the advisory. Bowling targeted a stranger, strangled her, dragged her up the stairs by her neck, taunted her, and raped her. The victim had numerous physical injuries and suffered significant emotional trauma. In her victim impact statement, she explained that she moved away and dropped out of her PhD program at Indiana University after the attack “because [she] no longer felt safe living in Bloomington.” Tr. at 55. There is no evidence that Bowling's offense was “accompanied by restraint, regard, [or] lack of brutality.” Cramer v. State, 240 N.E.3d 693, 698 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015)). The nature of his offense therefore does not warrant a downward revision of his sentence.

[15] Turning to Bowling's character, we keep in mind that “to the extent the evidence on one prong militates against relief, a claim based on the other prong must be all the stronger to justify relief.” Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 127. “Consideration of the character of the offender involves a broad analysis of the defendant's ‘qualities, life, and conduct.’ ” Cramer, 240 N.E.3d at 699 (quoting Crabtree v. State, 152 N.E.3d 687, 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied.). Bowling focuses on the abuse he experienced throughout his childhood, that he was only twenty years old when he committed this rape, and that he pled guilty and accepted responsibility. We are unpersuaded.

[16] The record shows Bowling brutally raped two more women after the rape at issue here and continued to engage in sexual misconduct while incarcerated. Bowling also admitted at sentencing that he had a history of involvement with “[g]angbangers[ and] killers,” and he had participated in robberies. Tr. at 23. While we are sympathetic to the difficulties Bowling experienced as a child, his decisions later in life nonetheless reflect poorly on his character and don't evince grounds for a downward revision of his sentence. As the trial court said, “a lot of people have undergone abuse and trauma and have come through it without abusing and traumatizing others” and “without committing crimes.” Id. at 66.

[17] Bowling has failed to prove his sentence was inappropriate.

Conclusion

[18] For the reasons discussed above, we affirm Bowling's sentence.

[19] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   This is a medical term for burst blood vessels.

2.   “CODIS” stands for Combined DNA Index System.

3.   In October 2024, Bowling pled guilty to the same charge in the May 2019 and September 2021 rape cases. He was sentenced to consecutive DOC terms of thirteen and fifteen years, respectively.

DeBoer, Judge.

Foley, J., and Felix, J., concur.