Corey R. Withrow, Appellant/Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee/Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In July of 2020, Corey Withrow, who was intoxicated on methamphetamine and fentanyl, drove his tractor-trailer at seventy-two miles per hour into a much-slower car, catastrophically injuring Aaron Bruce and killing Bruce's four children. After Withrow pled guilty to four counts of Level 4 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated (“OWI”) causing death and one count of Level 4 felony OWI causing catastrophic injury, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of forty-five years of incarceration. Withrow contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character. Because we disagree, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] At around 5:00 p.m. on July 9, 2020, Arthur Durham was eastbound on I-70 in Wayne County when he noticed Withrow's tractor-trailer driving erratically, “weaving back and forth[,]” and unable to maintain a lane, even forcing another tractor-trailer onto the shoulder at one point to avoid a collision. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 26. Withrow approached a construction zone with a posted speed limit of fifty-five miles per hour, and traffic ahead of him had almost slowed to a stop.

[3] Withrow's tractor-trailer, going seventy-two miles per hour and without braking, collided with an automobile, causing both vehicles to burst into flames. Bruce was in the automobile along with his four children, who were between the ages of six and fifteen years old. While the severely-injured Bruce was able to escape the wreckage, his children were not. All four children died of multiple blunt-force injuries and all were burned over half of their bodies.

[4] As for Bruce, he suffered burns over fifty-six percent of his body, was put into a medically-induced coma and intubated, underwent over twenty-five surgeries in July and August of 2020, had to have the fingers on his left hand amputated, suffered a broken clavicle and rib, and was not even aware that his children had died until early September. Approximately two years after the crash, Bruce indicated that he had only recently been able to return to work, had already undergone between seventy-five and 100 surgeries, and would still need to undergo frequent skin surgeries in the future.

[5] Withrow, who was found near the scene staggering and with slow and slurred speech, was taken to a hospital, where he was also observed to be staggering, shaking, and slurring his speech. Withrow's left arm bore fresh injection marks, and testing revealed a “high level of methamphetamine and fentanyl and their metabolites in his system at the time of the crash.” Tr. Vol. II pp. 34–35.

[6] On July 10, 2020, the State charged Withrow with four counts of Level 4 felony OWI causing death, one count of Level 4 felony OWI causing catastrophic injury, and four counts of Level 5 felony reckless homicide. On June 8, 2022, after Withrow had pled guilty as charged, the trial court entered judgment of conviction on four counts of Level 4 felony OWI causing death and one count of Level 4 felony OWI causing catastrophic injury.¹ On June 14, 2022, the trial court sentenced Withrow to nine years of incarceration for each of his convictions, to be served consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of forty-five years, with no part of his sentence suspended to probation.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Withrow contends that his forty-five-year sentence is inappropriately harsh. We “may revise a sentence authorized by statute 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.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). “Although appellate review of sentences must give due consideration to the trial court's sentence because of the special expertise of the trial bench in making sentencing decisions, Appellate Rule 7(B) is an authorization to revise sentences when certain broad conditions are satisfied.” Shouse v. State, 849 N.E.2d 650, 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citations and quotation marks omitted), trans. denied. “[W]hether we regard a sentence as appropriate 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.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). In addition to the “ ‘due consideration’ ” we are required to give to the trial court's sentencing decision, “we understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.” Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)). In this case, Withrow was convicted of OWI causing catastrophic injury and four counts OWI causing death, each of which convictions carried a sentence of “a fixed term of between two (2) and twelve (12) years, with the advisory sentence being six (6) years.” Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5. The trial court sentenced Withrow to an aggregate forty-five years of incarceration, which is, for consecutive sentences, greater than the advisory of thirty but less than the maximum of sixty.

[8] While Withrow does not argue that the nature of his offenses warrants a sentence reduction, we address their nature nonetheless. “Our analysis of the nature of the offense requires us to look at the nature, extent, heinousness, and brutality of the offense.” Pritcher v. State, 208 N.E.3d 656, 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The nature of the offense is found in the details and circumstances surrounding the offense and the defendant's participation. Perry v. State, 78 N.E.3d 1, 13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). It would be difficult to overstate the amount of pain, suffering, and grief Withrow's actions have caused. Because Withrow chose to get high on methamphetamine ² and get behind the wheel of a tractor-trailer, four children's lives were ended in horrific fashion, Bruce is permanently disabled and disfigured, and the lives of many others have been irreversibly altered for the worse. While it may be true that Withrow did not intend to hurt anyone that day, this is accounted for by the offenses of which he was convicted, which did not require proof that he did. The horrific nature of Withrow's offenses does not warrant a reduction in his sentence.

[9] As for Withrow's character, the analysis of a defendant's character “involves a broad consideration of a defendant's qualities, including the defendant's age, criminal history, background, past rehabilitative efforts, and remorse.” Pritcher, 208 N.E.3d at 668 (citing Harris v. State, 165 N.E.3d 91, 100 (Ind. 2021)). When the circumstances on one prong of the analysis pursuant to Rule 7(B) weigh against relief, “a claim based on the other prong must be all the stronger to justify relief.” Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 127 (Ind. 2024). We have little hesitation in concluding that Withrow's character does not support a downward revision in his sentence, let alone come close to overcoming the egregious nature of his offenses, especially in the absence of any evidence of “substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character.” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[10] Withrow's history of criminal conduct and substance abuse reflects poorly on his character. When reviewing a defendant's criminal history, we consider the gravity, nature, proximity, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current offense. Pritcher, 208 N.E.3d at 668. Withrow, who was thirty-three years old when he pled guilty in June of 2022, has a significant criminal history, much of which is of a nature similar to that of his offenses in this case. Withrow's criminal history began in 2013 in Ohio, with a pretrial diversion following a charge of fifth-degree felony heroin possession. Withrow seemingly went on to have four felony convictions in Ohio, for fifth-degree felony breaking and entering, third-degree felony burglary, fifth-degree felony heroin possession, and fifth-degree felony aggravated possession of drugs.

[11] Moreover, attempts at rehabilitation less punitive than incarceration have not worked. Withrow has been sentenced to community control multiple times, each time violating its terms. Withrow's last community-control placement was revoked following the crash and a positive drug screen. Even when Withrow had received treatment through the courts, this had not deterred his continued substance abuse and criminal conduct. (Appellant's App. Vol. II pp. 39, 41). See Wellings v. State, 184 N.E.3d 1236, 1239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (noting that the defendant's previous probation revocation was a poor reflection of his character, demonstrating a “failure to respond to previous efforts at rehabilitation”). While Withrow argues that his issues with PTSD, anxiety, and depression have likely contributed to his substance abuse, this does not outweigh the fact that he has been given many chances by many courts but has failed to take advantage of opportunities for rehabilitation. See Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 845 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (observing that the failure to take advantage of rehabilitative opportunities reflects poorly on a defendant's character), trans. denied.

[12] Withrow's actions also demonstrate a lack of genuine remorse. The trial court found that Withrow's statements at his sentencing hearing did not indicate “tremendous remorse.” Tr. Vol. II p. 94. Withrow repeatedly referred to the crash that had killed four children and grievously injured their father as an “accident[,]” Tr. Vol. II p. 71, which prompted the trial court to observe that the incident had been “far from an accident” because Withrow had made the choice to drive a tractor-trailer while highly intoxicated. Tr. Vol. II p. 94. “The trial court is in the best position to judge the sincerity of a defendant's remorseful statements.” Stout v. State, 834 N.E.2d 707, 711 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. Withrow's failure to fully appreciate the consequences of his substance abuse and choices further lessens the effect of any accountability demonstrated by his guilty plea. See Wills v. State, 269 N.E.3d 1273, 1286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (concluding that Wills's character did not render his sentence for OWI causing death and serious bodily injury inappropriate, in part because his “description of this offense as an ‘accident’ suggest a failure to understand the depth of his substance abuse issues and the nature of this offense”), trans. denied. Withrow has failed to establish that his forty-five-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character.

[13] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The trial court “[m]erged” Withrow's four convictions for reckless homicide without entering judgments of conviction. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 19.

2.   Withrow argued at sentencing that he had taken only methamphetamine intentionally and that the fentanyl must have been “laced into the meth.” Tr. Vol. II p. 78.

Bradford, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur.