Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-170 | December 22, 2020 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

Jeffrey W. Elftman

Pauper Counsel

Kokomo, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Benjamin C. Wade

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Phillip Epperly,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

December 22, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-170

Appeal from the Tipton Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Thomas R. Lett, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

80C01-1505-F5-198

Weissmann, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-170 | December 22, 2020 Page 2 of 5

[2] Phillip Epperly argues he committed a typical reckless homicide, undeserving of 

the maximum sentence. But he drove under the influence, totaled his car, 

dragged his passenger’s lifeless body away from the wreckage, and attempted to 

deflect blame onto her. Finding his six-year sentence is not inappropriate, we 

affirm. 

Facts

[3] Phillip Epperly downed four beers and popped two painkillers. Then he took 

his girlfriend, Karla Wolford, for a drive. Sometime before midnight, Epperly 

drove through a stop sign, lost control of his vehicle, and hit a tree in his own 

front yard. Epperly then dragged an unresponsive Wolford into his home. 

When police arrived, Wolford was lying on the floor, covered in blood. She was 

pronounced dead at the scene. Epperly initially told police Wolford had been 

driving, but he later admitted responsibility for the crash. 

[4] Four years after Wolford’s death, Epperly pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony 

reckless homicide. The trial court sentenced him to the statutory maximum, six 

years in the Department of Corrections. Epperly now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Epperly argues the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to the 

statutory maximum and that the sentence is inappropriate in light of his 

character and the nature of the offense under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). We 

address these arguments in turn.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-170 | December 22, 2020 Page 3 of 5

I. Abuse of Discretion

[6] Sentencing is a discretionary function of the trial court, which we review only 

for an abuse of discretion. Anglemeyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007). 

A trial court abuses its discretion if the decision is “clearly against the logic and 

effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, 

probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Id. (quoting K.S. v. 

State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind. 2006)). To facilitate our review of sentencing, 

the trial court must detail its rationale. Id.

[7] Epperly argues the trial court abused its discretion by improperly counting an 

element of the crime as an aggravator in imposing his sentence. See Gomillia v. 

State, 13 N.E.3d 846, 852-53 (Ind. 2014) (holding that it is improper as a matter 

of law to impose a sentence greater than the advisory sentence because of 

material elements of the offense). According to Epperly, the court based its 

finding that “a reduced or suspended sentence would depreciate the seriousness 

of the crime” on Wolford’s death, which is an element of reckless homicide.

Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 78.

[8] Epperly paints the trial court’s order with too broad a brush. What makes his 

crime exceptional is not that Wolford died but how it happened. Epperly 

dragged Wolford’s lifeless body from the wreckage and briefly attempted to 

blame her for her own death. The circumstances of the crime—not the resulting 

death—are what render this reckless homicide particularly egregious. The trial 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-170 | December 22, 2020 Page 4 of 5

court did not use an element of the crime to aggravate Epperly’s sentence and 

therefore we find no abuse of discretion.

II. Ind. App. R. 7(B)

[9] Next, Epperly challenges his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Even 

when a trial court acts within its discretion in sentencing, independent appellate 

review and revision is permitted. Anglemeyer, 868 N.E.2d at 491 (quoting 

Childress, 848 N.E.2d 1073,1080 Ind. 2006)). This 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.” Ind. App. R. 7(B). We conduct this review 

with “substantial deference” to the trial court because the “principal role of 

[our] review is to attempt to leaven the outliers, and not to achieve a perceived 

correct sentence.” Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014) (quotations 

and citations omitted).

[10] Epperly argues his commission of reckless homicide was not particularly 

heinous and therefore undeserving of the maximum sentence. In doing so, he 

disregards the tragic circumstances of Wolford’s death as detailed above. For 

the reasons articulated in Part I of this opinion, we cannot find the trial court 

erred in weighing of the nature of the offense.

[11] Epperly also argues the nature of his character supports a lighter sentence. He 

points out that his prior convictions were ten and twenty years ago, and neither 

resulted in injury to another person. But even a minor criminal history can 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-170 | December 22, 2020 Page 5 of 5

“speak poorly to [a defendant’s] character.” Quintanilla v. State, 146 N.E.3d 982, 

989 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). Additionally, Epperly’s prior convictions were both 

related to substance abuse, which he failed to address. He cites his history of 

drug abuse as a mitigating factor without acknowledging his failure to seek help 

for his addiction. A trial court does not abuse its discretion in considering drug 

abuse, especially drug abuse that is allowed to continue unabated, to be an 

aggravator at sentencing. See, e.g., Mehringer v. State, 152 N.E.3d 667, 676 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2020) (observing that treatment for alcohol abuse is not necessarily 

evidence of good character if it was only sought after letting the problem “get 

out of control”). Though Epperly contends his unresolved addiction should be 

considered mitigating, his drug use and his failure to address his addiction

contributed to his girlfriend’s death. In light of these considerations, Epperly 

has failed to persuade us he has a redeeming character demanding of sentencing 

relief. 

[12] As the trial court did not abuse its discretion or enter an inappropriate sentence, 

the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Mathias, J., and Altice, J., concur.