Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-31 | July 30, 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

Leanna Weissmann

Lawrenceburg, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Matthew B. Mackenzie

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Wayne Coleman Wilson, III,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

July 30, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-31

Appeal from the Monroe Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Teresa D. Harper, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

53C09-1604-F2-316

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-31 | July 30, 2019 Page 2 of 5

[1] Wayne Wilson, III, appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court after he 

pleaded guilty to Level 2 Felony Dealing in a Narcotic Drug, arguing that the 

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

Finding the sentence not inappropriate, we affirm. 

[2] On April 15, 2016, a confidential informant working with the Monroe County 

Police Department scheduled a controlled drug buy with Wilson. The 

informant arranged to have Wilson sell him upwards of $6,500 worth of heroin.

At a Kroger parking lot in Bloomington, Wilson had arrived to meet the 

informant when police officers surrounded his vehicle. After Wilson’s arrest, 

officers discovered two bags containing a total of seventy to seventy-five grams 

of a substance that was later determined to be heroin. Wilson immediately 

admitted that the heroin was his and that he had planned on selling it to the 

confidential informant. Wilson has a criminal record and had previously been 

convicted of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, Class A 

misdemeanor criminal trespass, and Class C misdemeanor knowingly or 

intentionally operating a vehicle without a license. 

[3] On April 19, 2016, the State charged Wilson with one count of Level 2 felony 

dealing in a narcotic drug. On January 5, 2018, Wilson pleaded guilty as 

charged. The trial court continued sentencing so that Wilson’s attorney might 

be granted leave to explore community probation options. While out on bond, 

but before sentencing, Wilson was charged with two felony counts of 

obstruction of justice in federal court on March 18, 2018. Federal prosecutors 

suspected Wilson of sending threatening text messages to a cooperating witness 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-31 | July 30, 2019 Page 3 of 5

in a sex trafficking case against one of Wilson’s associates, James Young. Also 

while out on bond, Wilson continued dealing in various drugs, including 

marijuana, Oxycontin, and Percocet. The trial court here waited to sentence 

Wilson until after the disposition of his federal charges. 

[4] On November 19, 2018, Wilson pleaded guilty in federal court to felony witness 

tampering and witness harassment and received a thirty-three-month sentence 

in federal prison. Finally, on December 6, 2018, the trial court sentenced 

Wilson to seventeen and one-half years in the Department of Correction, with 

three years suspended to probation. Wilson now appeals. 

[5] Wilson argues that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate in 

light of the nature of the offense and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) 

states that a “Court may revise a 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.” The defendant 

bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. 

State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). In determining whether the sentence 

is inappropriate, we will consider numerous factors such as 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.” Cardwell v. State, 895 

N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). It is our job to leaven the outliers, not to 

achieve a perceived “correct” sentencing result. Id. at 1225. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-31 | July 30, 2019 Page 4 of 5

[6] The maximum sentence for a Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug

conviction is thirty years, and the minimum sentence is ten years. Ind. Code § 

35-50-2-4.5. The advisory sentence is seventeen and one-half years. Id. Here, the 

trial court sentenced Wilson to the advisory term of seventeen and one-half 

years, with three years suspended to probation.

[7] First, as to the nature of the offense, Wilson admitted to dealing in extremely 

dangerous quantities of drugs. Police officers discovered between seventy and 

seventy-five grams of heroin in Wilson’s vehicle at the time of his arrest—more 

than seven times the amount necessary to convict a defendant of Level 2 felony 

dealing in a narcotic drug. Drug crimes, especially when there is an ongoing 

opioid epidemic occurring in our State, can inflict massive damage on a 

community. Wilson was willing to traffic in large quantities of these drugs and 

to drive all the way to Bloomington to do so. Therefore, we find that nature of 

Wilson’s offense does not render his sentence inappropriate. 

[8] Next, as to Wilson’s character, Wilson makes light of the fact that he has been 

charged and convicted of numerous offenses in the past. See Lindsey v. State, 916 

N.E.2d 230, 241 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (finding that a “criminal record alone 

justifies the sentence imposed by the trial court”). Wilson has defied the law 

many times, accumulated numerous convictions, and has not changed his 

character despite multiple opportunities for improvement. Moreover, Wilson 

was charged with and convicted of a federal crime while he was awaiting 

sentencing for his state felony conviction. And, the fact that Wilson continued 

dealing in illegal substances while out on bond demonstrates a lack of reform or 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-31 | July 30, 2019 Page 5 of 5

remorse for what he has done. Therefore, we find that Wilson’s character does 

not render his sentence inappropriate.

[9] In sum, we will not revise Wilson’s sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate 

Rule 7(B).

[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.