Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-869 | November 13, 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

Samuel J. Dayton

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Arron Andre Waldeck,

Appellant-Defendant,

v. 

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff

November 13, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-869 

Appeal from the Henry Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Bob A. Witham, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

33C01-1702-F5-8 

May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-869 | November 13, 2019 Page 2 of 6

[1] Arron Andre Waldeck appeals her four-year sentence for Level 5 felony

operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life.

1 She argues her 

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

We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On February 17, 2017, police clocked a car going 93 miles per hour in a 70 

miles per hour zone in Henry County around mile marker 118.5 on Interstate 

70. After weaving through traffic to attempt to evade capture, Waldeck stopped

on the shoulder of the road. The police officer did not see her stop but 

recognized the car as he passed it. He then proceeded to the nearest median to

turn around. By the time police returned to the place where Waldeck had 

parked, she had moved her car and was driving along the emergency shoulder 

at 65 miles per hour. The police were able to catch up with her around mile 

marker 123, and they pulled her over on the exit ramp for SR30. Waldeck 

supplied a fake name to an Indiana State Police Trooper. Because Waldeck 

was driving with a lifetime-suspended license, police arrested her. The State 

charged her with Level 5 felony operating a vehicle with a lifetime suspension

1 Ind. Code § 9-30-10-17(a)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-869 | November 13, 2019 Page 3 of 6

and Class C misdemeanor refusal to identify self,2 and she was cited for a 

speeding infraction.

[3] Waldeck and the State entered a plea agreement whereby Waldeck would plead 

guilty to the Level 5 felony charge and the State would dismiss the other 

allegations and not advocate for a sentence longer than four years. At her 

sentencing hearing, Waldeck argued she should be able to serve any executed 

time on home detention. The court imposed a four-year sentence to be served 

in the Indiana Department of Correction.

Discussion and Decision

[4] We may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and the character of the offender. Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 633 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)). Our review is deferential 

to the trial court’s decision, and our goal is to determine whether the appellant’s 

sentence is inappropriate, not whether some other sentence would be more 

appropriate. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012), reh’g denied. We 

consider not only the aggravators and mitigators found by the trial court, but 

also any other factors appearing in the record. Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852, 

856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating the 

sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

2 Ind. Code § 34-28-5-3.5.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-869 | November 13, 2019 Page 4 of 6

[5] When considering the nature of the offense, our review of appropriateness starts 

with the advisory sentence. Clara v. State, 899 N.E.2d 733, 736 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2009). A Level 5 felony conviction of operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture 

of license for life carries a sentence between one and six years, with the advisory 

sentence being three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b). The trial court imposed a

four-year sentence, which is closer to the advisory than the maximum sentence. 

[6] Waldeck contends her offense was minor and non-violent in nature. However, 

Waldeck was not simply driving with a forfeited license. The police radar 

indicated that Waldeck was driving at 93mph in a 70mph zone. She was also 

weaving in and out of traffic trying to avoid capture, and at some points she 

was driving upwards of 65mph on the shoulder of the highway. We see 

nothing inappropriate about a four-year sentence for Waldeck’s crime. See, e.g., 

Reis v. State, 88 N.E.3d 1099, 1101 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (five-year sentence for 

operating a vehicle after forfeiture of driving privileges not inappropriate given 

“egregious nature” of defendant’s offense when defendant fell asleep with his 

vehicle obstructing two lanes of traffic).

[7] We next turn to examination of Waldeck’s character, for which she claims a 

four-year sentence is inappropriate. A determination of character is based on 

the life and conduct of an offender. Washington v. State, 940 N.E.2d 1220, 1222 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. Criminal history plays a relevant role in this 

process, and the weight given to a defendant’s criminal history varies depending 

on the nature, number, and severity of the past offenses. Rutherford v. State, 866 

N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-869 | November 13, 2019 Page 5 of 6

[8] A quick perusal of Waldeck’s lengthy list of driving infractions demonstrates a 

definite and well-established pattern of disrespect for our traffic laws. Within 

the last ten years, Waldeck has amassed eight violations for failure to provide

insurance, two charges of driving while suspended, six speeding tickets, three 

seatbelt violations, two convictions of operating while intoxicated, and 

numerous citations for other traffic violations. (App. Vol. II at 58-61.)

[9] In addition, Waldeck’s criminal history demonstrates her disregard of the law. 

Her record shows involvement in the criminal justice system for over a decade.

(Id. at 61.) Her convictions include one felony and one misdemeanor. She 

has served two terms of probation and violated the terms of probation both 

times. Waldeck has also served two terms in community corrections, but she

has never completed a non-executed sentence without violation, as she violated

probation three times and home detention twice. (Id. at 58-59.) Waldeck’s 

continued commission of driving offenses resulted in her license being taken 

away as a habitual offender, and yet she still chose to continue driving. 

[10] Waldeck claims her sentence is inappropriate because she “had stable housing, 

was employed full-time and attending school full-time, and was exercising 

regular parenting time,” (Br. of Appellant at 8), and because she had provided 

information to the police on an unrelated case. However, all of those facts were 

based on Waldeck’s own testimony, which the trial court was not required to 

find credible. See Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (Ind. 2004)

(“factfinders are not required to believe a witness’s testimony even when it is 

uncontradicted”). Furthermore, in light of Waldeck’s driving record and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-869 | November 13, 2019 Page 6 of 6

criminal history, we cannot say those facts render Waldeck’s sentence 

inappropriate based on her character. See Perry v. State, 78 N.E.3d 1, 13 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2017) (sentence not inappropriate based on Perry’s criminal history 

and lack of remorse).

Conclusion

[11] Waldeck’s four-year sentence for Level 5 felony operating a motor vehicle after 

forfeiture of license for life is not inappropriate based on the nature of the 

offense and Waldeck’s character. The trial court’s sentence is affirmed. 

[12] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Bailey, J., concur.