Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1503-CR-145 | October 13, 2015 Page 1 of 10

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

Lawrence D. Newman

Newman & Newman, P.C.

Noblesville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Jodi Kathryn Stein

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

William Ray Neeb,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

October 13, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

29A02-1503-CR-145

Appeal from the Hamilton 

Superior Court

The Honorable Steven R. Nation, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

29D01-1408-F2-7027

Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1503-CR-145 | October 13, 2015 Page 2 of 10

Case Summary and Issues

[1] Following a jury trial, William Neeb was convicted of Count I, dealing in 

methamphetamine weighing at least one gram but less than five grams, a Level 

4 felony; Count III, dealing in methamphetamine weighing at least five grams 

but less than ten grams, a Level 3 felony; and Count V, dealing in 

methamphetamine weighing at least ten grams, a Level 2 felony. He received a 

sentence of thirty years imprisonment. Neeb appeals his convictions of Count 

III and V and his sentence, raising two issues for our review: 1) whether the 

State presented sufficient evidence to overcome Neeb’s entrapment defense, and 

2) whether Neeb’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses 

and character. Concluding there was sufficient evidence to sustain Neeb’s 

convictions and his sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On July 23, 2014, Detective Elizabeth Hubbs of the Hamilton County Boone 

County Drug Task Force was investigating Neeb while working as an 

undercover officer. Detective Hubbs and Alesia, a confidential informant who 

had arranged a meeting with Neeb, traveled to Neeb’s trailer located in 

Noblesville. Detective Hubbs possessed a covert video camera, a digital 

recorder, and a microphone.

[3] After Neeb and Detective Hubbs disagreed about the location of the deal, the 

trio agreed to meet at a nearby Speedway gas station. Detective Hubbs and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1503-CR-145 | October 13, 2015 Page 3 of 10

Neeb began discussing the price for 3.5 grams of methamphetamine. Neeb 

stated the price was $325.00 and confirmed Detective Hubbs was receiving a 

“first time buyer’s discount[.]” Transcript at 289. Alesia mentioned if they

were satisfied with the methamphetamine then they would want more. Neeb 

indicated he could get more and that he was almost “always on[,]” signifying

the pair could contact him at any time for more methamphetamine. Id. at 287. 

Ultimately, Detective Hubbs paid Neeb and took possession of the

methamphetamine.

[4] Four days later, Detective Hubbs texted Neeb to arrange another 

methamphetamine purchase. Neeb responded and stated he could obtain a 

quarter ounce of methamphetamine. On August 4, Detective Hubbs met Neeb

at a Dollar General store in Noblesville. In exchange for $575.00, Neeb gave 

Detective Hubbs 6.6 grams of methamphetamine. Two days later, Neeb texted 

Detective Hubbs inquiring as to how the most recent batch of 

methamphetamine worked for her. They then arranged a third meeting. On 

August 14, the two met at the same Dollar General store. In exchange for 

$1,100.00, Neeb gave Detective Hubbs 12.81 grams of methamphetamine. 

Neeb was arrested several days later.

[5] The State charged Neeb with Count I, Level 4 felony dealing in 

methamphetamine and Count II, Level 6 felony possession of 

methamphetamine for the July 23 transaction; Count III, Level 3 felony dealing 

in methamphetamine and Count IV, Level 5 felony possession of 

methamphetamine for the August 4 transaction; and Count V, Level 2 felony 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1503-CR-145 | October 13, 2015 Page 4 of 10

dealing in methamphetamine and Count VI, Level 4 felony possession of 

methamphetamine for the August 14 transaction.

[6] After being released on bond, Neeb called Alesia’s aunt, Charlene Thompson, 

and left a series of threatening voicemails: 

Charlene, you know who this is. Your niece has me looking at 

90 years in prison and if she doesn’t get me out of it and get me 

my truck back that I’ve worked hard for with my social security 

money, I’m rolling on you and Melinda. She’s got 24 hours or

I’m calling the guy that I need to talk to. Capisce?

* * *

Charlene, you know who this is. You know what’s going on, 

and so do I. And I’m dead serious about what I said. They want 

me to roll on somebody and you tell your little niece if she does 

not get me my truck back and does not get me out of trouble, all 

my charges dropped, because I was not messing with nobody but 

her. She called me, begging me, and look what I’ve done for 

you. This is all on a recording, yes, and I will roll on you and 

Melinda if she doesn’t get me my truck back and get me out of 

trouble. And I’ve already talked to Mike Howell about it. So get 

it done.

* * * 

Charlene, it’s 24 hours. I’m getting ready to call this guy and I’m 

going to fucking flip everybody if my truck ain’t in my driveway 

today.

Tr. at 13. As a result, the trial court revoked Neeb’s bond.

[7] At trial, the jury found Neeb guilty on all counts, and the trial court entered a 

judgment of conviction on Counts I, III, and V. The trial court sentenced Neeb 

to thirty years in the Department of Correction. This appeal ensued. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1503-CR-145 | October 13, 2015 Page 5 of 10

Discussion and Decision

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

A. Standard of Review

[8] “We review a claim of entrapment using the same standard that applies to other 

challenges to the sufficiency of evidence.” Dockery v. State, 644 N.E.2d 573, 578 

(Ind. 1994). When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a 

conviction, a reviewing court shall consider only the probative evidence and 

reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 

146 (Ind. 2007). The court neither reweighs the evidence nor reassesses the 

credibility of witnesses. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). 

Rather, the court must respect “the jury’s exclusive province to weigh 

conflicting evidence.” Id. (citation omitted). Therefore, the court should affirm 

the conviction unless “no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the 

crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146-47 

(citation omitted).

B. Entrapment

[9] Neeb contends the State failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome his 

defense of entrapment as to Counts III and V. Specifically, Neeb argues the 

amount of methamphetamine increased at the second and third transactions

due to police inducement and he was not predisposed to deal in the amounts 

that created the bases for Counts III and V. At the outset, we note the jury was 

instructed on the entrapment defense, but nevertheless found Neeb guilty.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1503-CR-145 | October 13, 2015 Page 6 of 10

[10] Indiana law provides for the defense of entrapment as follows:

(a) It is a defense that:

(1) the prohibited conduct of the person was the product of a law 

enforcement officer, or his agent, using persuasion or other 

means likely to cause the person to engage in the conduct; and

(2) the person was not predisposed to commit the offense.

(b) Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit 

the offense does not constitute entrapment.

Ind. Code § 35-41-3-9. “There is thus no entrapment if the State shows either 

(1) there was no police inducement, or (2) the defendant was predisposed to 

commit the crime.” Griesemer v. State, 26 N.E.3d 606, 609 (Ind. 2015). The 

question of whether a defendant was predisposed to commit the crime is for the 

trier of fact. Dockery, 644 N.E.2d at 577.

[11] The State presented sufficient evidence to show Neeb’s predisposition to deal in 

methamphetamine. Factors indicating a predisposition to sell drugs include: 

knowledge of drug prices; knowledge of drug sources and suppliers; use and 

understanding of terminology of the drug market; solicitation of future drug 

sales; and multiple sales to undercover officers. Riley v. State, 711 N.E.2d 489, 

494 (Ind. 1999). Here, Neeb sold Detective Hubbs methamphetamine on three 

separate occasions. Moreover, as evidenced by Neeb’s first interaction with 

Hubbs, Neeb was well-versed in drug jargon, possessed the capability of 

attaining more methamphetamine, had knowledge of methamphetamine 

pricing, and agreed to a “first-time buyer’s discount”:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1503-CR-145 | October 13, 2015 Page 7 of 10

[Neeb:] You get a bunch of crumbs and shit, I told this one 

mother fucker, I said, man, I don’t want no fucking Fruity 

Pebbles, you know, fuck that shit.

[CI:] If [Hubbs] and her roommate like it and if I like it, then 

we’re going to want more of this . . . . 

[Neeb:] I can get it. I’m just saying, that’s all I’m saying.

[Hubbs:] Are you always on then?

[Neeb:] Pretty much.

* * *

[Hubbs:] So here’s the deal. Do I get a first time buyer’s 

discount?

[Neeb:] 325. You are. I’m telling you right now, they charge 

400 for this shit, an eight ball.

[Hubbs:] Oh, they do.

[Neeb:] I’m serious. Fuck, yeah. If you can get it somewhere 

cheaper than that, let me know. I’ll buy it all day long. As long 

as it’s chunks like that. I won’t buy no Fruity Pebbles.

Tr. at 287, 289-90. Detective Hubbs testified Neeb’s reference to “Fruity 

Pebbles” was “talking about the quality of meth.” Id. at 297. At the second 

transaction, Neeb indicated that, because he feared both his neighbor’s 

wandering eyes and his girlfriend discovering his transactions, he “usually 

deliver[ed].” Id. at 306. Additionally, Neeb obtained, and dealt, an increasing 

amount of methamphetamine. Finally, we note that, prior to the third 

transaction, Neeb initiated contact with Detective Hubbs.

[12] Neeb was a willing participant in the act of dealing in methamphetamine. See 

Turner v. State, 993 N.E.2d 640, 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (finding defendant’s 

ability to produce seven ounces of cocaine, familiarity with drug jargon, and 

solicitation of a future transaction was sufficient evidence of predisposition to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1503-CR-145 | October 13, 2015 Page 8 of 10

deal cocaine), trans. denied. Accordingly, the evidence presented at trial was 

sufficient for the jury to conclude Neeb was predisposed to commit the crime of 

dealing in methamphetamine and therefore rebut his defense of entrapment.

II. Inappropriateness of Sentence 

A. Standard of Review

[13] Neeb also contends his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offenses and his character. A reviewing court possesses the authority to revise a 

defendant’s sentence “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. Appellate Rule 7(B). The burden is on 

the defendant to persuade the reviewing court the sentence is inappropriate. 

Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). “[S]entencing is 

principally a discretionary function in which the trial court’s judgment should 

receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 

2008). It is not for the reviewing court “to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in 

each case,” but “[t]he principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to 

leaven the outliers.” Id. at 1225. Whether we regard a sentence as 

inappropriate turns on “the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the 

crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light 

in a given case.” Id. at 1224. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1503-CR-145 | October 13, 2015 Page 9 of 10

B. Neeb’s Sentence

[14] As to the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting point the 

legislature selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed. 

Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 

218. Neeb was convicted of three felonies for dealing in methamphetamine: a 

Level 4 (Count I), a Level 3 (Count III), and a Level 2 (Count V). A Level 4 

felony carries a sentencing range of two to twelve years, with an advisory 

sentence of six years, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5; a Level 3 felony carries a 

sentencing range of three to sixteen years, with an advisory sentence of nine 

years, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5(b); and a Level 2 felony carries a sentencing range 

of ten to thirty years, with an advisory sentence of seventeen and one-half years,

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5. Neeb received a twelve-year sentence on Count I, a 

sixteen-year sentence on Count III, and a thirty-year sentence on Count V, to be 

served concurrently.

[15] Neeb argues his actions spanning a period of three weeks should “not lead a 

trial court to order Neeb to execute the maximum sentence that he received.” 

Brief of Appellant at 20. Yet, over this three-week period, Neeb easily obtained

and sold an increasing amount of methamphetamine to Detective Hubbs—over 

twenty-two grams in total. Additionally, we note despite being found guilty on 

Counts I, III, and V, and being sentenced to the maximum on each count, 

Neeb’s sentence is to be served concurrently, despite the trial court having the 

discretion to order the sentence run consecutively.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1503-CR-145 | October 13, 2015 Page 10 of 10

[16] As to his character, Neeb fails to take responsibility for his actions. The presentence investigation report noted Neeb feels he was set-up and, because he 

was only helping out Alesia, his dealings were limited to Detective Hubbs. We 

note, however, Alesia was involved only in the first transaction, and Neeb 

continued to sell methamphetamine to Detective Hubbs. Moreover, Neeb’s 

complete lack of remorse is evidenced by the threatening messages he left on 

Charlene Thompson’s voicemail. Finally, Neeb’s criminal history dates back to 

the early 1980s. Not including the convictions before us, Neeb has been 

convicted of four felonies stemming from battery and substance abuse charges

and numerous other misdemeanors. Neeb has been placed on probation eleven 

times, and probation was revoked five of those times. Ultimately, Neeb 

demonstrates a disrespect for authority. 

[17] Given the nature of the offense, Neeb’s character, and his disrespect for 

authority, we are not persuaded Neeb’s sentence of thirty years in the 

Department of Correction is inappropriate. 

Conclusion

[18] The State presented sufficient evidence to overcome Neeb’s entrapment 

defense, and his sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of his 

offenses or his character. Therefore, we affirm his convictions and sentence.

[19] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Pyle, J., concur.