Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-20 | June 21, 2017 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

Cara Schaefer Wieneke 

Wieneke Law Office, LLC. 

Brooklyn, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 

Attorney General of Indiana 

Elizabeth M. Littlejohn 

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA 

Mason S. Crockett, 

Appellant-Defendant, 

v. 

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff 

June 21, 2017 

Court of Appeals Case No. 

84A01-1701-CR-20 

Appeal from the Vigo Superior 

Court 

The Honorable David R. Bolk, 

Judge 

Trial Court Cause No. 

84D03-1606-MR-1626 

Vaidik, Chief Judge. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-20 | June 21, 2017 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary 

[1] Mason S. Crockett was convicted of voluntary manslaughter for stabbing his 

brother. The trial court sentenced him to twenty years. He now appeals 

arguing that his sentence is inappropriate. Because Mason has failed to 

persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History 

[2] In 2016, Mason and his then-girlfriend, Kylee, lived with their three children in 

Terre Haute. When Mason’s brother, Zachary Crockett, was released from jail, 

Mason and Kylee allowed him to move in with them. Shortly thereafter, 

Zachary and Kylee became romantically involved, which led Mason to move 

out. Despite moving out, Mason continued to financially support the 

household. Mason gave Kylee their shared car because of their children, 

continued to pay rent and utilities, and provided groceries for the household. 

[3] On May 16, 2016, the brothers got into a fight in response to Zachary’s 

interference with Mason’s visitation with his children. Mason was arrested and 

pled guilty to battery the following week. He was placed on probation. 

[4] Around 8:00 p.m. on June 16 Mason went to Kylee’s house to pick up some 

personal items. Zachary was there at the time. Mason, intoxicated, confronted 

Zachary about a recent incident where he physically abused Kylee and one of 

the children. Another fight ensued between the brothers. Toward the end of 

the fight, Zachary began “taunting” Mason about his romantic relationship 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-20 | June 21, 2017 Page 3 of 5

with Kylee. Tr. Vol. III pp. 45-46. Mason stabbed Zachary in the chest and 

left. 

[5] After the stabbing, Mason did not call 911 or otherwise seek help for his 

brother. Around 2:00 a.m., Mason called his mother, who lived in Tennessee, 

and told her that “he stabbed Zachary.” Tr. Vol. III p. 18. However, Mason 

would not tell her where he left Zachary or give her the house address. She 

eventually received the address from Kylee and called the Sheriff’s Office. 

[6] A deputy from the Vigo County Sheriff’s Office went to Kylee’s house around 

10:00 a.m. to conduct a welfare check for Zachary. Zachary’s body was found 

around noon. Mason was arrested later that day. The State charged Mason 

with murder and Level 2 felony voluntary manslaughter. Mason and the State 

entered a plea agreement, whereby Mason would plead guilty to voluntary 

manslaughter and the State would dismiss the murder charge. Pursuant to the 

agreement, the sentence could not exceed twenty-five years. 

[7] At the sentencing hearing, the court identified three aggravating circumstances: 

(1) Mason’s prior criminal history; (2) the fact that he was on probation at the 

time of the offense; and (3) that Mason was convicted of battering Zachary 

about thirty days before the stabbing. The trial court identified two mitigating 

circumstances: (1) Mason pled guilty and took responsibility for the crime and 

(2) he was remorseful for his actions. The court sentenced Mason to twenty 

years. 

[8] Mason now appeals. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-20 | June 21, 2017 Page 4 of 5

Discussion and Decision 

[9] Mason contends that his twenty-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the 

“unremarkable nature of his offense” and his “notable character.” Appellant’s 

Br. p. 4. The Indiana Constitution authorizes independent appellate review and 

revision of a trial court’s sentencing decision. Brown v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1, 4 

(Ind. 2014). 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 

defendant.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). “A defendant must persuade the 

appellate court that his or her sentence has met this inappropriateness standard 

of review.” Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). 

[10] The principal role of Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the 

outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged 

with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived 

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

2008). “Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability 

of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a 

myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.” Thompson v. State, 5 

N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). 

[11] A person who commits a Level 2 felony must be imprisoned for a fixed term of 

between ten and thirty years, with an advisory sentence of seventeen-and-a half 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-20 | June 21, 2017 Page 5 of 5

years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5. The trial court sentenced Mason to twenty 

years, which is slightly above the advisory term. 

[12] Mason concedes that the offense is “serious.” Appellant’s Br. p. 8. However, 

he contends that the offense is not “as egregious as other killings.” Id. To the 

contrary, an intoxicated Mason stabbed his brother and did not seek help for 

him afterwards. Mason testified that “it looked like [Zachary] saw death itself,” 

yet he still did not call 911. Tr. Vol. III p. 46. Moreover, Mason told his 

mother that he stabbed his brother but refused to give his whereabouts. 

Zachary’s body was not found until about sixteen hours later. 

[13] Mason’s character does not fare much better. Since the age of fifteen, Mason 

has been committing crimes, which have become more violent over time. At 

the time of sentencing, Mason “had two juvenile adjudications, two prior 

felonies and three misdemeanor convictions.” Tr. Vol. III pp. 58-59. In 

addition, at the time of stabbing, Mason was on probation for battering his 

brother a mere thirty days earlier. 

[14] Given the nature of this crime and Mason’s criminal history, we conclude that 

his twenty-year sentence is not inappropriate. 

[15] Affirmed. 

Bailey, J., and Robb, J., concur.