Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1604-CR-755 | October 14, 2016 Page 1 of 5

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

Gregory L. Fumarolo

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Paula J. Beller

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Walter Ward, III,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

October 14, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

02A05-1604-CR-755

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

The Honorable Frances C. Gull, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

02D05-1506-F5-172

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1604-CR-755 | October 14, 2016 Page 2 of 5

Statement of the Case

[1] Walter Ward, III, appeals his sentence following his convictions for possession 

of cocaine, as a Level 5 felony; resisting law enforcement, as a Level 6 felony; 

being a habitual traffic violator, a Level 6 felony; and possession of 

paraphernalia, as a Class A misdemeanor; pursuant to a guilty plea. Ward 

presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether his sentence is 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History 

[2] On June 4, 2015, Detective M. Deshaies of the Fort Wayne Police Department 

attempted to initiate a traffic stop of Ward’s Dodge Durango. Instead of 

stopping his vehicle, Ward attempted to evade Detective Deshaies by traveling 

at a high rate of speed. During the ensuing chase, Detective Deshaies saw 

Ward throw a baggie out of the vehicle. At some point, Ward, with some 

difficulty, exited the moving vehicle and attempted to flee Detective Deshaies 

on foot. Detective Deshaies ultimately stopped Ward by using a taser gun.

[3] On July 6, Ward pleaded guilty as charged to possession of cocaine, as a Level 

5 felony; resisting law enforcement, as a Level 6 felony; being a habitual traffic 

violator, a Level 6 felony; and possession of paraphernalia, as a Class A 

misdemeanor. Ward was accepted into drug court, and his successful 

completion of that program would have resulted in the dismissal of his charges. 

But after approximately seven months, Ward violated the conditions of the 

program, and the State filed a petition to terminate Ward’s participation in drug 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1604-CR-755 | October 14, 2016 Page 3 of 5

court. Following a hearing, Ward was terminated from drug court, and the trial 

court conducted a sentencing hearing on March 8, 2016. At the conclusion of 

the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Ward to an aggregate five-year 

term. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision 

[4] Ward asserts that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offenses and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) permits an Indiana 

appellate court to “revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due 

consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds that the sentence is 

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

offender.” We assess the trial court’s recognition or nonrecognition of 

aggravators and mitigators as an initial guide to determining whether the 

sentence imposed was inappropriate. Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2006). The principal role of appellate review is to “leaven the 

outliers.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). A defendant 

must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met the 

inappropriateness standard of review. Roush v. State, 875 N.E.2d 801, 812 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2007). 

[5] Here, Ward pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine, as a Level 5 felony; 

resisting law enforcement, as a Level 6 felony; being a habitual traffic violator, a 

Level 6 felony; and possession of paraphernalia, as a Class A misdemeanor. A 

Level 5 felony carries a sentencing range of one to six years’ imprisonment, 

with an advisory term of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b) (2015). A Level 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1604-CR-755 | October 14, 2016 Page 4 of 5

6 felony carries a sentencing range of six months to two and one-half years’ 

imprisonment, with an advisory term of one year. I.C. § 35-50-2-7(b). And a

Class A misdemeanor carries a maximum one-year term. I.C. § 35-50-3-2. In 

ordering Ward to serve an aggregate five-year term, the trial court relied on the 

following aggravating circumstances: the nature and circumstances of the 

offenses and Ward’s criminal history, which includes sixteen misdemeanor 

convictions, eight prior felony convictions, and “failed efforts at rehabilitation.” 

Sent. tr. at 13. The court also identified the following mitigating circumstances: 

Ward’s guilty plea; his show of remorse; and his acceptance of responsibility for 

his conduct.

[6] Ward has not met his burden on appeal to demonstrate that his sentence is 

inappropriate. Regarding the nature of his offenses, Ward points out that he 

“possessed only .3 grams of crack cocaine,” and he alleges that he was “up[-]

charged and convicted of a Level 5 felony based on a prior drug dealing 

conviction from 1997.” Appellant’s Br. at 18. Ward asserts that, “[g]iven the 

small quantity of crack cocaine involved and the age of the felony (which 

increased the level of offense from a Level 6 to a Level 5),” the offenses warrant 

a lesser sentence. Id. We cannot agree.

[7] As the State points out, Ward “showed no regard for public safety when he led 

Detective Deshaies on a high speed chase through Fort Wayne.” Appellee’s Br. 

at 7. And he further endangered the public when he exited the vehicle while it 

was still moving. These circumstances go beyond a typical possession offense. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1604-CR-755 | October 14, 2016 Page 5 of 5

We cannot say that Ward’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his 

offenses.

[8] Neither is Ward’s sentence inappropriate in light of his character. On this 

point, Ward emphasizes his acceptance into the drug court program and his 

“somewhat successful” participation in that program before being terminated. 

Appellant’s Br. at 17. But, as Ward acknowledges, his criminal history is 

extensive, spanning decades and including eight prior felony convictions and 

failed attempts at rehabilitation. We cannot say that Ward’s five-year sentence 

is inappropriate in light of his character. We affirm Ward’s sentence. 

[9] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Baker, J., concur.