Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1702-CR-346 | August 31, 2017 Page 1 of 14

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Mark A. Bates

Crown Point, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Michael Gene Worden

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Mark A. Williams,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

August 31, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

45A03-1702-CR-346

Appeal from the Lake Superior 

Court

The Honorable Diane Ross 

Boswell, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

45G03-1311-MR-9

Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1702-CR-346 | August 31, 2017 Page 2 of 14

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Defendant, Mark A. Williams (Williams), appeals his sentence 

following his conviction for two Counts of murder committed while 

perpetrating a robbery, felonies, Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(2) (2013).

[2] We affirm.

ISSUES

[3] Williams raises two issues on appeal, which we restate as follows:

(1) Whether the trial court abused its sentencing discretion in its consideration 

of aggravating and mitigating circumstances; and

(2) Whether Williams’ sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and his character.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] On November 1, 2013, Williams went to the Gary, Lake County, Indiana, 

home of Leviticus Dupree (Leviticus) and Toshiba Dupree (Toshiba). Wielding 

a knife, Williams took a shotgun belonging to Leviticus. In the course of 

stealing the shotgun, Williams repeatedly stabbed both Leviticus and Toshiba. 

Neither Leviticus nor Toshiba survived their injuries. 

[5] On November 10, 2013, the State filed an Information, charging Williams with 

Counts I and II, murder, felonies, I.C. § 35-42-1-1(1); Counts III and IV, 

murder while perpetrating a robbery, felonies, I.C. § 35-42-1-1(2); Counts V and 

VI, robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, Class A felonies, I.C. §35-42-5-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1702-CR-346 | August 31, 2017 Page 3 of 14

1(1); and Count VII, auto theft, a Class D felony, I.C. § 35-43-4-2.5(b)(1). The 

Information was amended on November 19, 2013, to add Counts VIII and IX, 

armed robbery, Class B felonies, I.C. § 35-42-5-1(1); as well as a habitual 

offender enhancement as Count X.

[6] On September 29, 2016, Williams entered into a plea agreement with the State, 

pursuant to which he agreed to plead guilty but mentally ill to Counts III and 

IV, murder in the perpetration of a robbery, felonies. The parties settled on a 

sentencing cap of fifty-five years for each Count. In exchange for Williams’ 

plea, the State moved for the dismissal of the remaining charges. The same 

day, the plea agreement was filed with the trial court, and a hearing was 

conducted. The trial court determined that Williams had entered into the plea 

agreement knowingly and voluntarily, and the trial court found that there was a 

factual basis to support the guilty but mentally ill plea. On January 19, 2017, 

the trial court held another hearing and accepted the plea agreement, entering a 

judgment of conviction for two Counts of murder committed while perpetrating 

a robbery, felonies. The trial court subsequently sentenced Williams to 

consecutive terms of fifty-five years for each charge, fully executed in the 

Indiana Department of Correction (DOC).

[7] Williams now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1702-CR-346 | August 31, 2017 Page 4 of 14

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

I. Abuse of Sentencing Discretion

[8] Williams claims that the trial court abused its discretion by improperly 

considering certain aggravating circumstances and failing to consider certain 

mitigating circumstances. Sentencing decisions are a matter of trial court

discretion and are reviewed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion. 

Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490, clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 

2007). It is an abuse of discretion if the trial court’s decision “is ‘clearly against 

the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the 

reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.’” Id.

(quoting K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind. 2006)). To protect “against 

arbitrary and capricious sentencing” and “provide[] an adequate basis for 

appellate review,” trial courts are required, for all felony offenses, to enter 

sentencing statements that “include a reasonably detailed recitation of the trial 

court’s reasons for imposing a particular sentence.” Id. at 489-90. A trial court 

“may impose any sentence within the statutory range without regard to the 

existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.” Id. at 489. If the trial court 

“‘finds’ the existence of ‘aggravating circumstances or mitigating circumstances’ 

then the trial court is required to give ‘a statement of the court’s reasons for 

selecting the sentence that it imposes.’” Id. at 490 (quoting I.C. § 35-38-1-3(3)).

[9] On appeal, a trial court may be found to have abused its discretion by failing to 

enter a sentencing statement at all; entering a sentencing statement that explains 

its reasons for imposing a sentence where such reasons are not supported by the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1702-CR-346 | August 31, 2017 Page 5 of 14

record or are improper as a matter of law; or entering a sentencing statement 

that omits reasons which are clearly supported by the record and advanced for 

consideration. Id. at 490-91. A trial court may not be said to have abused its 

discretion by failing to properly weigh aggravating and mitigating factors. Id. at 

491. If we find that the trial court has abused its sentencing discretion, our 

court will remand for resentencing “if we cannot say with confidence that the 

trial court would have imposed the same sentence had it properly considered 

reasons that enjoy support in the record.” Id.

[10] The crime of felony murder is subject to a fixed term of imprisonment “between 

forty-five (45) and sixty-five (65) years, with the advisory sentence being fiftyfive (55) years.” I.C. § 35-50-2-3(a) (2013). Here, the trial court imposed the 

advisory sentence for each felony murder charge, which was the maximum 

term allowed under Williams’ plea agreement. In determining Williams’ 

sentence, the trial court found that consecutive terms were warranted “as there 

were two specific victims in this case and there needs to be a sentence for each 

victim.” (Sentencing Tr. Vol. II, pp. 83-84). As an aggravating circumstance, 

the trial court identified Williams’ prior history, specifically the fact that “he is a 

repeat offender of this crime, and due to his mental condition, he is likely to 

repeat this crime.” (Sentencing Tr. Vol. II, p. 84). The trial court also found it 

aggravating that Williams’ victims “were in essence close family members to” 

Williams—i.e., that he was in a position of trust with the victims, and “the 

crime was brutal and heinous and certainly beyond what was necessary. These 

pictures [of the crime scene] are just gruesome.” (Sentencing Tr. Vol. II, p. 84). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1702-CR-346 | August 31, 2017 Page 6 of 14

In its written sentencing order, the trial court subsequently clarified that it found

no mitigating circumstances. Williams now contends that the trial court abused 

its discretion by improperly repeating the same aggravating factor in multiple 

variations and by failing to identify any mitigating circumstances.

A. Aggravating Circumstances

[11] Williams argues that three of the trial court’s identified aggravating factors “are 

variations on a single theme: his prior criminal history.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 9). 

In its written sentencing order, the trial court listed Williams’ “prior criminal 

history”; the fact that Williams “is a repeat offender”; and that “[t]here is great 

risk that [Williams] will commit another crime of this nature because of his 

prior criminal history and his mental illness” as separate aggravating 

circumstances. (Appellant’s Conf. App. Vol. II, p. 103). Without citing any 

authority that supports his position, Williams asserts that it was improper for 

the trial court to “re-us[e] the prior criminal history aggravator three times in 

order to justify the sentence it imposed.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 10).

[12] We find no merit in Williams’ argument. Williams has a serious criminal 

history, including a prior conviction for voluntary manslaughter. See I.C. § 35-

38-1-7.1(a)(2) (stating that the trial court may consider that “[t]he person has a 

history of criminal or delinquent behavior” as an aggravating circumstance). 

Similar to the instant case, in November of 1996, Williams stabbed a woman to 

death and subsequently pled guilty; he received a sentence of thirty years and 

was released from the DOC in 2012. Less than two years later, he stabbed the 

victims in the current case. A single aggravating circumstance is sufficient to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1702-CR-346 | August 31, 2017 Page 7 of 14

support an enhanced sentence, and even “[i]f one aggravating factor is 

improperly applied, the sentence is still valid as long as ‘other valid aggravators 

exist[] and the invalid aggravator did not play a significant role in the trial 

court’s decision.’” Coy v. State, 999 N.E.2d 937, 947 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). 

Thus, Williams’ criminal history, standing alone, is a valid aggravating 

circumstance that would support the trial court’s sentencing decision. Edsall v.

State, 983 N.E.2d 200, 206 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Furthermore, Williams does 

not challenge the validity of the other aggravating circumstances—i.e., that he 

was in a position of trust with Leviticus and Toshiba and that the circumstances 

of the crime were particularly heinous. Moreover, while Williams received the 

maximum sentence permitted under his plea agreement, we note that his 

sentence is still technically the advisory term for murder under the law, and the 

fact that there are valid aggravating circumstances supports the imposition of 

consecutive sentences. See Gross v. State, 22 N.E.3d 863, 870 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2014), trans. denied. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial 

court’s identification of aggravating circumstances.

B. Mitigating Circumstances

[13] Williams also contends that the trial court abused its discretion by identifying 

no mitigating circumstances. A trial court is under no obligation “to accept a 

defendant’s claim as to what constitutes a mitigating circumstance.” Weedman 

v. State, 21 N.E.3d 873, 893 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. “Where the trial 

court does not find the existence of a mitigating factor after it has been argued 

by counsel, the trial court is not obligated to explain why it has found that the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1702-CR-346 | August 31, 2017 Page 8 of 14

factor does not exist.” Phelps v. State, 969 N.E.2d 1009, 1019 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2012), trans. denied. “A claim that the trial court failed to find a mitigating 

circumstance requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is 

both significant and clearly supported by the record.” Weedman, 21 N.E.3d at 

893.

[14] Williams first argues that the trial court should have identified his guilty plea in 

mitigation. A trial court “should be ‘inherently aware of the fact that a guilty 

plea is a mitigating circumstance.’” Caraway v. State, 959 N.E.2d 847, 853 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Francis v. State, 817 N.E.2d 235, 237 n.2 (Ind. 2004)), 

trans. denied. Thus, even where, as in the current case, the defendant does not 

specifically raise his guilty plea as a mitigating circumstance before the trial 

court, the defendant is not precluded from arguing on appeal that the trial court 

abused its discretion in failing to find the plea as a mitigating circumstance. Id. 

Notwithstanding that a guilty plea should be considered in mitigation, it is well 

established that “the significance of a guilty plea as a mitigating factor varies 

from case to case. For example, a guilty plea may not be significantly 

mitigating when it does not demonstrate the defendant’s acceptance of 

responsibility, or when the defendant receives a substantial benefit in return for 

the plea.” Anglemyer, 875 N.E.2d at 221 (internal citations omitted).

[15] In this case, the significance of Williams’ guilty plea is slight. As Williams 

made clear during the sentencing hearing, although he admitted that he took 

part in the murder of Toshiba, he blamed his co-defendant as the primary 

perpetrator in carrying out the crimes. Williams claimed that his mental illness 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1702-CR-346 | August 31, 2017 Page 9 of 14

makes him susceptible to being “easily coaxed,” so he asked the trial court to 

consider that “his role . . . was of a lesser quality than what the [c]ourt may at 

first glance have assumed that it was.” (Sentencing Tr. Vol. II, p. 80). Also, 

despite the evidence indicating that the victims treated Williams like a member 

of their family, nothing in the record suggests that Williams ever expressed any

remorse for the slayings. Moreover, in exchange for pleading guilty to two 

Counts of felony murder, the State agreed to dismiss eight other charges, 

including a habitual offender enhancement. It also appears that there was 

substantial evidence against Williams.1

 Thus, his decision to plead was 

pragmatic, and he received a substantial benefit. 

[16] Williams also argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to 

consider his “clearly documented” mental illness as a mitigating circumstance. 

(Appellant’s Br. p. 11). “Mental illness is not necessarily a significant 

mitigating factor; ‘rather, [it] is a mitigating factor to be used in certain 

circumstances, such as when the evidence demonstrates longstanding mental 

health issues or when the jury finds that a defendant is mentally ill.’” Townsend 

v. State, 45 N.E.3d 821, 831 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (alteration in original), trans. 

denied. “[I]n order for a [defendant’s] mental history to provide a basis for 

establishing a mitigating factor, there must be a nexus between the defendant’s 

 

1

 Records pertaining to Williams’ request for bail indicate that Williams admitted to committing the murders 

on three separate occasions.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1702-CR-346 | August 31, 2017 Page 10 of 14

mental health and the crime in question.” Weedman, 21 N.E.3d at 894 (second 

alteration in original).

[17] The existence of Williams’ mental illness is not in dispute. Pursuant to the plea 

agreement, the parties agreed that he was guilty but mentally ill at the time he 

murdered Leviticus and Toshiba. A psychiatrist testified during the sentencing 

hearing that Williams suffers from schizophrenia, “which goes back decades”; 

borderline intellectual functioning, “which goes back to the school years 

obviously”; and “significant drug issues.” (Sentencing Tr. Vol. II, pp. 38-39). 

In addition to the fact that Williams’ mental health issues have largely gone 

untreated throughout his life, excepting some intermittent periods of medication

and therapy, his crack-cocaine habit “made his symptoms of psychosis much 

worse.” (Sentencing Tr. Vol. II, p. 40). Williams reported “hearing voices for a 

very long time predating the first [murder in 1996].” (Sentencing Tr. Vol. II, p. 

40). Since his arrest in the present case, Williams has been medicated; yet, he 

“continues to hear voices.” (Sentencing Tr. Vol. II, p. 42). With medicine, the 

voices are “not as loud” and are “much more easily ignored. They don’t make 

him do things, but technically he’s still psychotic even though he’s on pretty 

good sized doses of antipsychotic medication and has been for some years now 

courtesy of the Lake County Jail.” (Sentencing Tr. Vol. II, p. 42).

[18] The trial court did not specifically identify Williams’ mental health as a 

circumstance warranting a mitigated sentence; however, the trial court cannot 

be said to have disregarded the factor entirely. Rather, the trial court stated that 

“the fact that [Williams] has mental health issues has been taken into 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1702-CR-346 | August 31, 2017 Page 11 of 14

consideration by the State in capping the sentence at the [fifty-five] years, the 

advisory sentence.” (Sentencing Tr. Vol. II, p. 84). While it is not the role of 

the State to determine aggravating or mitigating circumstances in fashioning a 

sentence, it is clear that the trial court acknowledged the impact of Williams’

mental health in formulating a sentence, but the trial court declined to find that 

his mental health should warrant any reduction below the advisory term in light 

of the abundant aggravating circumstances. This determination was the 

prerogative of the trial court, and we find no abuse of discretion. Moreover, 

even if the trial court had not taken Williams’ mental health into account, we 

would nevertheless decline to remand for resentencing as the trial court clearly 

would have imposed the same sentence regardless. Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 

491.

II. Inappropriate Sentence

[19] Williams also claims that his 110-year sentence is inappropriate. In cases where 

a trial court imposes a sentence that is authorized by statute, our court may 

revise the 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.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). Appellate Rule 7(B) 

provides for sentence review in an “attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify 

some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement of 

the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each 

case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Ultimately, 

“whether we regard a sentence as appropriate at the end of the day turns on our 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1702-CR-346 | August 31, 2017 Page 12 of 14

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.” Id.

at 1224. Our court focuses on “the length of the aggregate sentence and how it 

is to be served.” Id. Williams bears the burden of persuading this court that his 

sentence is inappropriate. Corbally v. State, 5 N.E.3d 463, 471 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2014).

[20] “[T]he advisory sentence is the starting point [that] our legislature has selected 

as [an] appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Richardson v. State, 906 

N.E.2d 241, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (citing Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 494). 

Here, pursuant to his plea agreement, Williams’ sentence for each of the two 

Counts of felony murder was capped at the advisory term of fifty-five years, 

resulting in an aggregate sentence of 110 years. See I.C. 35-50-2-3(a). The facts 

of this case indicate that Williams repeatedly stabbed two close family friends to 

death in the course of stealing their shotgun. Williams concedes that “[t]here is 

no denying that this was a serious crime with horrific consequences for all 

involved.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 13). Nevertheless, in light of the fact that “the 

nature of the offense was intertwined with Williams’[] mental illness” and “his 

intellectual disability,” Williams insists that “imposing concurrent sentences 

would be an appropriate sentence.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 15).

[21] Turning to his character, we recognize that Williams has a longstanding mental 

illness, as the result of which, he hears voices that encourage him to hurt 

himself and others. Past efforts to treat Williams have been unsuccessful as he 

refused to take his medication and would not submit to hospitalization. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1702-CR-346 | August 31, 2017 Page 13 of 14

Williams exacerbated the symptoms of his mental illness by abusing crackcocaine and alcohol. Although Williams functions better with medication and 

sobriety, he still hears the voices—they are just easier to ignore. In addition, 

evidence presented during the sentencing hearing provided this court with a 

glimpse into the abusive and twisted childhood that Williams’ endured, and it is 

nothing short of horrifying. Williams and his surviving siblings have certainly 

continued suffering into adulthood as a result of being victimized as children at 

the hands of their father.

[22] Nevertheless, Williams has demonstrated his inability to live among society. At 

age fifteen, Williams joined a street gang in Gary, Indiana, and he was 

eventually expelled from high school for fighting. In his early twenties, 

Williams began smoking crack-cocaine on a daily basis and drinking heavily. 

In 1996, Williams stabbed a woman to death and was sentenced to thirty years 

in the DOC. In 2012, Williams was released, and less than two years later, 

while on parole, Williams committed the instant stabbings. It is clear that 

Williams requires the structure of incarceration to maintain his mental health 

treatment and sobriety. He has now taken the lives of three individuals—at

least two of whom considered him to be family. We cannot say that his 

aggregate 110-year sentence is inappropriate.

CONCLUSION

[23] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its 

sentencing discretion by imposing the maximum sentence permitted under 

Williams’ plea agreement, which is the advisory sentence for each Count of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1702-CR-346 | August 31, 2017 Page 14 of 14

felony murder. We further conclude that Williams’ sentence is not 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

[24] Affirmed.

[25] Robb, J. and Pyle, J. concur