Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-292 | June 17, 2020 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

Cara Schaefer Wieneke

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Brooklyn, Indiana 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Matthew B. MacKenzie

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

James E. Fingers, Jr.,

Appellant/Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee/Plaintiff.

June 17, 2020 

Court of Appeals Case No. 

20A-CR-292 

Appeal from the Vanderburgh 

Circuit Court 

The Hon. Kelli Fink, Magistrate 

Trial Court Cause No. 

82C01-1907-F6-5131 

Bradford, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-292 | June 17, 2020 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary 

[1] In December of 2019, James Fingers, Jr., pled guilty to Level 6 felony 

methamphetamine possession, Level 6 felony failure to register as a sex 

offender, and Class A misdemeanor marijuana possession and admitted that he 

is a habitual offender. The trial court imposed an aggregate term of five years 

of incarceration, which Fingers argues is inappropriately harsh. Because we 

disagree, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History 

[2] On July 23, 2019, Evansville Police Detective Josh Patterson stopped a minivan 

being driven by Fingers after being advised by another officer that Fingers’s 

driving privileges had been suspended. A search of the minivan uncovered 

several baggies containing a green substance, a baggie containing a “crystal 

substance[,]” and a “blunt[.]” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 17. The green 

substance tested positive for THC, and the crystalline substance tested positive 

for methamphetamine. Fingers, who is a registered sex offender, presented 

identification to officers that listed a home address different than the address 

listed for him in the sex-offender registry. 

[3] On July 25, 2019, the State charged Fingers with Level 6 felony 

methamphetamine possession, Level 6 felony failure to register as a sex 

offender, and Class A misdemeanor marijuana possession and alleged that he is 

a habitual offender. On December 3, 2019, without benefit of a plea agreement, 

Fingers pled guilty as charged. On January 7, 2020, the trial court sentenced 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-292 | June 17, 2020 Page 3 of 6

Fingers to one and one-half years each for methamphetamine possession and 

failure to register a sex offender and ten months for marijuana possession, all 

sentences to be served concurrently, with the methamphetamine-possession 

sentence enhanced by three and one-half years by virtue of Fingers’s habitualoffender status. 

Discussion and Decision 

[4] Fingers contends that his five-year aggregate term of incarceration is

inappropriately harsh. We “may 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.” 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), trans. 

denied (citations and quotation marks omitted). “[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 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-292 | June 17, 2020 Page 4 of 6

sentencing decisions.” Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2007). 

[5] Fingers pled guilty to two Level 6 felonies and one Class A misdemeanor and 

admitted that he is a habitual offender. Indiana Code section 35-50-2-7(b)

provides that “[a] person who commits a Level 6 felony [...] shall be 

imprisoned for a fixed term of between six (6) months and two and one-half (2 

1⁄2) years, with the advisory sentence being one (1) year.” Moreover, “[t]he 

court shall sentence a person found to be a habitual offender to an additional 

fixed term that is between [...] two (2) years and six (6) years, for a person 

convicted of a Level 5 or Level 6 felony.” Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(i)(2). As 

mentioned, the trial court imposed an aggregate five-year term, which is out of 

a possible maximum of ten.

1

 

[6] The nature of Fingers’s offenses does not warrant a reduction in his sentence. 

While none of Fingers’s offenses, looked at in isolation, seem particularly 

egregious, he did commit two felonies, for which he received moderatelyenhanced sentences, and one misdemeanor. Moreover, Fingers committed 

these offenses despite his habitual-offender status. When we consider that the 

trial court could have imposed a term of incarceration twice as long as the one 

1

 Under the circumstances of this case, it seems that the trial court could have imposed a maximum 

aggregate sentence of no more than four years for Fingers’s three convictions, see Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(d)(1)

(“If the most serious crime [arising out of an episode of criminal conduct] for which the defendant is 

sentenced is a Level 6 felony, the total of the consecutive terms of imprisonment may not exceed four (4) 

years.”), which it then could have enhanced by six years. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-292 | June 17, 2020 Page 5 of 6

that it did, we conclude that the nature of Fingers’s offenses does not warrant a 

reduction. 

[7] Fingers’s character, as revealed by his truly appalling criminal history, fully 

justifies the five-year term of incarceration ordered in this case. Fingers, who 

was fifty years old when he committed the offenses in this case, has prior 

convictions for 

• Class B felony burglary;

• Class C felonies sexual battery and conspiracy to commit 

forgery;

• Class D felonies operating while intoxicated, possession of 

cocaine, theft, possession of a controlled substance, and 

possession of a schedule II controlled substance;

• Level 6 felonies failure to register as a sex offender, child 

seduction, and criminal confinement;

• Felony failure to register as a sex offender (Kentucky);

• Class A misdemeanors invasion of privacy, domestic 

battery, interfering with reporting of a crime, driving while 

suspended, operating while intoxicated causing 

endangerment, operating while intoxicated with a prior 

conviction, marijuana possession, and conversion, 

• Class B misdemeanors criminal recklessness, criminal 

mischief, and public intoxication;

• Class C misdemeanors operating while intoxicated,

operating a motor vehicle without having received a 

license, and illegal possession of paraphernalia;

• leaving the scene of an accident (Kentucky); and 

• operating while suspended (Kentucky). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-292 | June 17, 2020 Page 6 of 6

Fingers has multiple convictions for some of the crimes listed, bringing his total 

to fifteen prior felony convictions and many more than fifteen prior 

misdemeanor convictions. Despite Fingers’s lengthy criminal history and 

myriad opportunities to reform himself, he has not chosen to do so. In light of 

the nature of his offenses and his character, Fingers has failed to establish that 

the five-year term of imprisonment imposed in this case is inappropriate. 

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

Baker, J., and Pyle, J., concur.