Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2463 | April 2, 2019 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

Donald E.C. Leicht

Kokomo, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Marjorie Lawyer-Smith

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Braden Winters,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 2, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2463

Appeal from the Howard Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Lynn Murray, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

34C01-1706-F1-117

Shepard, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2463 | April 2, 2019 Page 2 of 5

[1] Braden Winters appeals the sixteen-year sentence the trial court imposed after 

he pleaded guilty to aggravated battery, a Level 3 felony.1 We affirm.

[2] On the night of May 27, 2017, nineteen-year-old Braden Winters was with 

Armando Shields at a self-storage facility in Kokomo, Indiana. They met 

Austin Mealer, a friend of Winters. The three men smoked a joint.

[3] Next, they went behind the storage units, where Shields and Winters donned 

gloves and robbed Mealer at gunpoint, taking his mobile phone and $200-300 in 

cash. Shields shot Mealer in the forehead, and then Winters shot Mealer in the 

back of his head as he lay on the ground. After Winters and Shields fled, 

Mealer stood up and sought help. He later identified Winters and Shields as the 

men who attacked him. Mealer developed frequent headaches and trouble 

sleeping as a result of his injuries, and he further stated he felt paranoid and 

afraid to leave his home.

[4] An arrest warrant was issued for Winters. On July 14, 2017, while he was still 

being sought by police, Winters stated on a social media website he was 

“feeling excited,” and further proclaimed, “Why they want me so bad. Make 

[sic] me feel special. All eyes on me!” Tr. Vol. III, State’s Ex. 1. The United 

States Marshals Service arrested Winters on July 20.

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.5 (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2463 | April 2, 2019 Page 3 of 5

[5] The State charged Winters with attempted murder, a Level 1 felony, and 

robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 2 felony. The parties 

negotiated a plea agreement. Winters agreed to plead guilty to aggravated 

battery, a Level 3 felony, and the State agreed to dismiss the Level 1 and Level 

2 felonies. The trial court accepted the agreement and sentenced Winters to 

sixteen years, suspending one year to community corrections.

[6] Winter argues his sentence is inappropriate and asks us to reduce it to twelve 

years, consisting of six years executed, two years served on in-home detention, 

and four years of supervised probation. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) authorizes 

the Court to 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.” A 

defendant bears the burden of persuading this Court that the sentence meets the 

inappropriateness standard. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006). 

Our resolution of whether a sentence is appropriate turns on myriad factors, 

including our evaluation of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the 

crime, and the damage done to others. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind.

2008).

[7] At the time Winters shot Mealer, a person who committed a Level 3 felony 

could be sentenced to a term of between three and sixteen years, with the 

advisory sentence being nine years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5 (2014). The trial 

court sentenced Winters to the maximum, suspending one year to community 

corrections.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2463 | April 2, 2019 Page 4 of 5

[8] The nature of the offense is distressing. Winters, along with Shields, ambushed 

and robbed his friend Mealer. They brought gloves with them, which 

demonstrates a degree of planning. Shields shot Mealer in the forehead, and 

Winters shot him in the back of the head as he lay on the ground. Winters fled

rather than seek help for Mealer. Further, Winters failed to turn himself in, 

choosing instead to brag on social media about being “excited” because law 

enforcement was looking for him.

[9] Mealer’s near-fatal injuries have left him physically and psychologically scarred. 

His doctors had to leave one of the rounds in his head and do not know if his

chronic severe headaches will go away. Mealer’s employment prospects are 

further hampered because he is afraid to leave his house.

[10] Turning to the character of the offender, Winters has no adult criminal history, 

but he has a steady juvenile record. In 2013, he was adjudicated a delinquent 

for an act of criminal mischief, a Class D felony, if committed by an adult. 

That same year, Winters was adjudicated a delinquent for acts of battery, a 

Class B misdemeanor, and criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor, if 

committed by an adult. He was placed on probation and later violated the 

terms of probation. Finally, in 2015, Winters was adjudicated a delinquent for 

acts of theft, resisting law enforcement, and possession of alcohol while 

underage, all misdemeanors, if committed by an adult. Winter has been unable 

to stay out of trouble for more than a few years at a time, despite ample 

opportunities to reform his conduct. In addition, he regularly consumed
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2463 | April 2, 2019 Page 5 of 5

controlled substances including marijuana, heroin, and methamphetamine 

despite receiving substance abuse treatment.

[11] Winters claims he is learning disabled, but: (1) he did not present this argument 

at sentencing; and (2) he does not identify a link between his learning disability

and the grievous offense he committed. He has failed to demonstrate his 

sentence is inappropriate.

[12] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.