Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-974 | September 30, 2019 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

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Caryn N. Szyper

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Anthony J. Williams,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

September 30, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-974

Appeal from the Vigo Superior 

Court

The Honorable John T. Roach, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

84D01-1808-F4-2699

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-974 | September 30, 2019 Page 2 of 6

Statement of the Case

[1] Anthony J. Williams appeals his sentence following his conviction for unlawful 

possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, as a Level 4 felony, pursuant 

to a guilty plea. Williams raises one issue for our review, namely, whether his 

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

We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On August 3, 2018, Williams’ daughter was arguing with her boyfriend, Deric 

Suddoth, while in Williams’ home. At one point, Suddoth tried to pull his 

girlfriend out of the house by her arms. Williams’ wife, Rubye Williams, asked 

Suddoth to leave, but he refused. Rubye then called Williams, who was not at 

the house at the time, and asked him to get Suddoth out of the house. Williams 

returned to the house and saw his daughter and Suddoth arguing near the 

street. Williams and Suddoth then became involved in a physical altercation, 

and Williams hit Suddoth with a handgun. At that point, the handgun 

discharged, and a bullet struck Suddoth in the face. 

[3] The State charged Williams with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm 

by a serious violent felon, as a Level 4 felony; two counts of battery, as Level 5 

felonies; and one count of criminal recklessness, as a Level 6 felony. 

Thereafter, Williams pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a 

firearm by a serious violent felon, as a Level 4 felony. Pursuant to the plea 

agreement, the parties agreed that Williams’ sentence would not exceed eight 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-974 | September 30, 2019 Page 3 of 6

years and that any executed time would be served in a community corrections 

program. In exchange for Williams’ plea, the State dismissed the remaining 

charges. Following a hearing, the trial court accepted Williams’ guilty plea. 

The court then sentenced Williams to eight years, with five years in a 

community corrections home detention program and three years suspended to 

probation. This appeal ensued. 

Discussion and Decision

[4] Williams contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “[t]he 

Court 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.” This court 

has recently held that “[t]he advisory sentence is the starting point the 

legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” 

Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). And the Indiana 

Supreme Court has recently explained that: 

The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to 

leaven the outliers . . . but not achieve a perceived “correct” 

result in each case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 

2008). Defendant has the burden to persuade us that the 

sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Anglemyer v. 

State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind.), as amended (July 10, 2007), 

decision clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).

Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-974 | September 30, 2019 Page 4 of 6

[5] Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate 

sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court’s judgment “should 

receive considerable deference.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. Whether we 

regard a sentence as inappropriate 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 facts that come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224. 

The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather 

whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 

268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] 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). 

[6] The sentencing range for a Level 4 felony is two years to twelve years, with an 

advisory sentence of six years. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5 (2019). Here, the 

trial court identified as aggravating factors Williams’ criminal history and the 

fact that Williams was on parole when he committed the instant offense. And 

the court identified as mitigators the fact that Williams had accepted 

responsibility for his actions and that he suffers from post-traumatic stress 

disorder. The trial court found that the aggravators outweighed the mitigators 

and imposed a sentence of eight years, with five years in a community 

corrections home detention program and three years suspended to probation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-974 | September 30, 2019 Page 5 of 6

[7] On appeal, Williams asserts that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offense because the offense was “somewhat justified” since “he 

was protecting his family” from Suddoth. Appellant’s Br. at 8. And Williams 

asserts that his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character because “he 

accepted responsibility for his actions immediately by speaking to police and 

admitting his involvement.” Id. 

[8] However, Williams has not met his burden to demonstrate that his sentence is 

inappropriate. With respect to the nature of the offense, Williams admitted to 

having possessed a firearm despite the fact that he has a prior conviction that 

qualified him as a serious violent felon. Further, Williams used that handgun 

to strike Suddoth, which resulted in Suddoth sustaining a gunshot wound to the 

face. And, while Williams contends that he was justified in his possession of 

the firearm because he was protecting his family, Williams had possessed the 

firearm before the altercation between his daughter and Suddoth. In other 

words, Williams unlawfully possessed the firearm entirely independent of the 

circumstances in which he used it. Accordingly, we cannot say that Williams’ 

sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense.

[9] As to his character, Williams has a lengthy criminal history that spans several 

states and includes prior convictions for burglary, forgery, possession of a 

controlled substance, and receiving stolen property. In addition, Williams’

criminal history includes two federal convictions for possession of a firearm by 

a serious violent felon. And Williams was on parole for those federal 

convictions at the time of the current offense. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-974 | September 30, 2019 Page 6 of 6

[10] Still, Williams asserts that his sentence is inappropriate despite his criminal 

history because the instant offense constituted a violation of the terms of his 

parole, which violation will “likely” result in Williams serving 33 to 41 months 

in federal prison. Appellant’s Br. at 8. In essence, Williams contends that “an 

8-year sentence to be served after nearly 4 years in federal prison was 

inappropriate.” Id. Williams’ argument on this point is not well taken. We 

acknowledge that Williams is likely to serve time in a federal prison because he

violated the terms of his federal parole. But we cannot say that Williams’ 

sentence for the instant offense is inappropriate simply because the offense will 

also result in the revocation of his parole in another case. Rather, as discussed 

above, Williams has a lengthy criminal history that reflects poorly on his 

character. We conclude that Williams’ sentence is not inappropriate, and we 

affirm his sentence.

[11] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and May, J., concur.