Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 28A01-1603-CR-707 | August 15, 2016 Page 1 of 4

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

Cara Schaefer Wieneke 

Special Assistant to the State Public 

Defender 

Wieneke Law Office, LLC 

Brooklyn, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller 

Attorney General of Indiana 

Caryn N. Szyper 

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Tanner Wilson, 

Appellant-Defendant, 

v. 

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff 

August 15, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No. 

28A01-1603-CR-707 

Appeal from the Greene Circuit 

Court 

The Honorable Eric C. Allen, 

Judge 

Trial Court Cause No. 

28C01-1511-F5-29 

Vaidik, Chief Judge. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 28A01-1603-CR-707 | August 15, 2016 Page 2 of 4

Case Summary 

[1] Tanner Wilson pled guilty to child exploitation and possession of child 

pornography and was sentenced to a term of incarceration to be followed by a 

year of probation. As conditions of that probation, Wilson was ordered not to 

visit any business that sells sexual devices or aids or to enter any establishment 

where alcohol is served by the drink. He appeals the imposition of these 

conditions. Because the sexual-devices-or-aids condition is overly broad, we 

remand this matter to the trial court with instructions to either vacate or narrow 

the condition. We affirm the alcohol condition. 

Facts and Procedural History 

[2] Wilson pled guilty to Level 5 felony child exploitation and Class A 

misdemeanor possession of child pornography based on his possession and 

distribution of digital images of nude children. The trial court sentenced him to 

four years on the felony, with one year suspended to probation, and to time 

served on the misdemeanor. Among other probation conditions, the court 

ordered Wilson not to “visit . . . businesses that sell sexual devices or aids,” 

Appellant’s App. p. 110-11, or to “enter any establishment where alcohol is 

served by the drink,” id. at 114. Wilson now appeals the imposition of these 

two conditions. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 28A01-1603-CR-707 | August 15, 2016 Page 3 of 4

Discussion and Decision 

[3] A trial court has broad discretion in imposing probation conditions, and we 

review the court’s decision in this regard only for an abuse of that discretion. 

Bailey v. State, 717 N.E.2d 1, 4 (Ind. 1999). Indiana Code section 35-38-2-

2.3(a)(15) gives courts authority to impose any term of probation that is 

“reasonably related to the person’s rehabilitation.” 

[4] As for the condition barring Wilson from visiting any business that sells “sexual 

devices or aids,” this Court has already held that such a restriction imposes an 

“unfairly broad prohibition” because it would cover not only adult-oriented 

businesses but also places like drug stores. Collins v. State, 911 N.E.2d 700, 714 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. The State acknowledges Collins and does not 

defend the imposition of the condition in this case. We therefore conclude that 

the trial court must either vacate or significantly narrow the condition. 

[5] Wilson also challenges the condition that prohibits him from entering any 

establishment that serves alcohol by the drink. He argues that this condition is 

overbroad because it prevents him from entering a wide variety of venues, 

including certain restaurants, zoos, and sports stadiums. The State defends the 

condition on the ground that such venues are frequented by children. The State 

contends that the condition is permissible in light of Carswell v. State, 721 

N.E.2d 1255, 1265 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), where we recognized “the propensity 

of alcohol to impair judgment and reduce inhibition,” and Smith v. State, 779 

N.E.2d 111, 117 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied, where we held that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 28A01-1603-CR-707 | August 15, 2016 Page 4 of 4

“probation conditions that reduce the potential for access to children are 

reasonable.” 

[6] We agree with the State. “Probation is a matter of grace and a conditional 

liberty which is a favor, not a right.” Ripps v. State, 968 N.E.2d 323, 326 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2012). It is granted only when the convicted defendant “specifically 

agrees to accept conditions upon his behavior in lieu of imprisonment.” 

Carswell, 721 N.E.2d at 1258. The only limitation placed on the discretion of 

the sentencing court is that the conditions “have a reasonable relationship to the 

treatment of the accused and the protection of the public.” Id.; see also Ind. 

Code § 35-38-2-2.3(a)(15). Excluding Wilson from venues that both serve 

alcohol and allow children unquestionably furthers both of these societal 

interests. We affirm the imposition of this condition. 

[7] Affirmed in part and remanded in part. 

Baker, J., and Najam, J., concur.