Steven Lee Wagers, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Steven Lee Wagers was convicted of Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 5 felony trafficking with an inmate, and Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine; he was also found to be a habitual offender. He now appeals, arguing the evidence is insufficient to support his Level 4 felony conviction and that convicting him of the Level 4 felony and the Level 5 felonies violated substantive double jeopardy. Finding the evidence sufficient to support the Level 4 felony conviction but that the three convictions together violate double jeopardy, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On February 19, 2025, Wagers was an inmate at the Hamilton County Jail. Camera surveillance showed Wagers in a holding cell sitting near another inmate. See State's Ex. 1b. Wagers set a folded piece of paper—later identified as his “phone PIN card”—between himself and the other inmate. Id. at 0:05-0:06; Tr. Vol. II p. 79. A few minutes later, Wagers leaned over, whispered to the other inmate, and pointed at the phone card. State's Ex. 1b, 2:37-2:45. The other inmate then pulled the card closer to himself and eventually leaned down and appeared to “snort” something off the phone card. Id. at 3:05-3:09; 5:03-5:08; Tr. Vol. II p. 92. Officers watching the surveillance cameras then separated the two and collected the phone card. Later testing revealed the phone card contained methamphetamine.

[3] The State charged Wagers with Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 5 felony trafficking with an inmate, and Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine, and alleged Wagers to be a habitual offender. A bifurcated jury trial was held in October 2025. The jury found Wagers guilty of the Level 4 and Level 5 felonies. Wagers then admitted to being a habitual offender.

[4] A sentencing hearing was held in December 2025. The court sentenced Wagers to eleven years for the Level 4 felony, enhanced by ten years for being a habitual offender, and six years for each Level 5 felony. The court ordered the Level 5 felonies to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to the Level 4 felony, for an aggregate sentence of twenty-seven years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction. Wagers now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Wagers first argues the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine. Our standard for reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence is well-settled:

For sufficiency of the evidence challenges, we consider only probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the judgment of the trier of fact. On sufficiency challenges, we will neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021) (citations omitted).

[6] Generally, a person who knowingly or intentionally delivers pure or adulterated methamphetamine commits dealing in methamphetamine as a Level 5 felony. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(a) (2017). However, the crime is enhanced to a Level 4 felony if the State proves “the amount of the drug involved is less than one (1) gram and an enhancing circumstance applies.” I.C. § 35-48-4-1.1(c)(2). As an enhancing circumstance, the State alleged Wagers committed the offense on the property of a penal facility. See Ind. Code § 35-48-1.1-18(7)(A) (2025). Wagers only argues the evidence is insufficient to support the “delivers” element. Delivery is defined as the “actual or constructive transfer from one (1) person to another of a controlled substance[.]” Ind. Code § 35-48-1.1-10(1) (2025).¹

[7] Wagers contends there is no evidence of a transfer of methamphetamine, specifically he argues there is no evidence the other inmate “ingested” or otherwise received methamphetamine and thus there was no “transfer from one person to another.” Appellant's Reply Br. p. 6. We disagree. The evidence clearly shows Wagers set the card down and later gestured towards it while whispering to the other inmate. The other inmate then moved the card, leaned over it, and appeared to snort something off it. Later testing of the card revealed the presence of methamphetamine. In sum, the camera footage clearly shows the card being transferred from Wagers’ possession to the other inmate's, and that the card contained methamphetamine. This is sufficient evidence that Wagers committed Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine.

[8] Additionally, Wagers argues his three convictions violate substantive double jeopardy and asks us to vacate both Level 5 felonies. The State concedes these convictions should be vacated because the statutes do not permit multiple punishments, the offenses may be factually included because the charging information is ambiguous, and Wagers’ actions constituted a single transaction. See Wadle v. State, 151 N.E.3d 227 (Ind. 2020); A.W. v. State, 229 N.E.3d 1060 (Ind. 2024). We agree. Thus, we reverse Wagers’ convictions for Level 5 felony trafficking with an inmate and Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine and remand for vacation of those convictions and resentencing. The remainder of the judgment is affirmed.

[9] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

FOOTNOTES

1.   This definition was previously stated in Indiana Code section 35-48-1-11 before it was repealed effective July 1, 2025.

Scheele, Judge.

May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.