Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1602-CR-311| August 4, 2016 Page 1 of 6

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

Justin R. Wall

Wall Legal Services 

Huntington, 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

Tara L. Wakefield, 

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana

Appellee-Plaintiff.

August 4, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

85A02-1602-CR-311

Appeal from the 

Wabash Superior Court

The Honorable 

Christopher M. Goff, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

85D01-1512-F6-1134

Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1602-CR-311| August 4, 2016 Page 2 of 6

[1] Tara L. Wakefield (“Wakefield”) pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a 

syringe as a Level 6 felony,

1 and the trial court sentenced her to one and onehalf years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction. On appeal, 

Wakefield contends that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of 

the offense and the character of the offender. 

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History 

[3] On December 11, 2015, Wabash Police Department Officers went to an 

apartment on North Comstock, in Wabash, Indiana, to investigate a report that 

an individual had threatened another with a knife. The tenant gave officers 

permission to search his apartment, and during that search, Officer Jason 

Mooney discovered a woman, later identified as Wakefield, asleep in bed. 

Wakefield initially identified herself as Jessica Sparks. However, during further 

questioning, she admitted that she lied about her name because warrants for her 

arrest had been issued in Cass and Huntington Counties. 

[4] Wakefield was arrested on the warrants and transported to the Wabash County 

Jail with her purse and coat. During booking, officers searched Wakefield’s 

purse and found a hypodermic needle at the bottom. An eyeglass case 

containing another hypodermic needle and a metal spoon with burn marks on 

 

1

See Ind. Code § 16-42-19-18(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1602-CR-311| August 4, 2016 Page 3 of 6

the bottom of it was also found in Wakefield’s purse. Wakefield was charged 

with unlawful possession of a syringe and possession of paraphernalia. 

[5] At the initial hearing, Wakefield pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of 

syringe, a Level 6 felony without the assistance of counsel and without the 

benefit of a negotiated plea. The possession of paraphernalia count was later 

dismissed. The trial court accepted Wakefield’s plea and took sentencing under 

advisement to order a Pre-Sentence Investigation Report.

[6] At sentencing, the trial court found in mitigation the fact that Wakefield entered 

her plea of guilty without the benefit of counsel and without a negotiated plea 

agreement. Tr. at 22. The trial court found the following aggravating factors:

the risk that Wakefield will commit another crime; the nature and 

circumstances of the crimes committed; and her prior criminal record, her 

character, and condition. Id. Wakefield’s prior criminal history included 

approximately five misdemeanor convictions, one felony conviction, and one 

probation violation. The trial court also considered that Wakefield had 

“significant problems in the past” with drug and alcohol issues. Id. The trial 

court determined that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors

and sentenced Wakefield to one and one-half years executed. Wakefield now 

appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) empowers us to independently review and revise 

sentences authorized by statute if, after due consideration, we find the trial 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1602-CR-311| August 4, 2016 Page 4 of 6

court’s decision is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the 

character of the offender. Anderson v. State, 989 N.E.2d 823, 827 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2013), trans. denied. “Even if the trial court followed the appropriate procedure 

in arriving at its sentence, this court still maintains a constitutional power to 

revise a sentence it finds inappropriate.” Golden v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1212, 1218 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Revision of a sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) 

requires the appellant to demonstrate that her sentence is inappropriate in light 

of both the nature of his offenses and her character. See Ind. Appellate Rule 

7(B); Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to 

the trial court “should prevail unless overcome by compelling evidence 

portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by 

restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant’s character (such as 

substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson 

v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). The defendant bears the burden to 

“persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met this 

inappropriateness standard of review.” Calvert v. State, 930 N.E.2d 633, 643 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2010). 

[8] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge that 

the advisory sentence is the starting point which the Legislature has selected as 

an appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 

1073, 1081 (Ind. 2006). Here, Wakefield was convicted of Level 6 felony 

unlawful possession of a syringe. The sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1602-CR-311| August 4, 2016 Page 5 of 6

between six months and two and one-half years, with an advisory sentence of 

one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7.

[9] Wakefield argues that her one and one-half year sentence is inappropriate in 

light of the nature of the offense and her character. As to the nature of the 

offense, Wakefield was found in possession of two hypodermic needles. 

Although the nature of the offense is not particularly egregious, Wakefield had 

warrants for her arrest in two counties and was a fugitive at the time of her 

arrest, and she was also on probation in Huntington County and facing charges 

in Cass County. She gave the police a fake name in an attempt to conceal her 

identity because she knew about the warrants. 

[10] As to Wakefield’s character, since 2002 she has accumulated five misdemeanor 

convictions and one felony conviction and has pending misdemeanor and 

felony charges in multiple counties. Wakefield’s prior convictions are for 

battery resulting in bodily injury, conversion, check deception, and robbery 

while armed with a deadly weapon or resulting in bodily injury to another 

person. Wakefield has also been found to be in violation of her supervised 

probation. At the time of the present conviction, Wakefield had pending 

charges for corrupt business influence and six counts of theft, all of which are 

felonies. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1602-CR-311| August 4, 2016 Page 6 of 6

[11] Wakefield has not met her burden of proving that the one and one-half year 

sentence is inappropriate in light of nature of the offense and her character.2

[12] Affirmed.

[13] Riley, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

 

2 Wakefield also contends that she “would have greatly benefit[t]ed from a lesser sentence in that she would 

have been afforded a greater opportunity to participate in drug treatment programs such as the Wabash Drug 

Court Program or through services offered by Wabash Community Corrections.” Appellant’s Br. at 15. 

Concluding that Wakefield’s sentence is not inappropriate, we do not address Wakefield’s contentions 

regarding drug treatment programs.