Anthony J. Wampler v. State of Indiana, 67 N.E.3d 633

In June 2014 Anthony Wampler, who has a long history of psychiatric illness, entered the home of his former classmate K.S., watched him sleep, took a beer and a photocopied quote, and left a note; K.S. discovered the broken screen and note and reported it to police.
Wampler was initially found incompetent to stand trial, treated, later found competent, and then tried and convicted after a bench trial of two counts of Class B felony burglary and adjudicated a habitual offender.
The trial court sentenced Wampler to concurrent 18-year terms for the burglaries, enhanced by 15 years for the habitual-offender adjudication, for an aggregate 33-year sentence.
Wampler appealed, arguing his sentence was inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B); the Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence in 57 N.E.3d 884, with a dissent by Judge Mathias arguing mental-health considerations warranted relief.
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, agreed with the dissent that the 33-year aggregate sentence was inappropriate under Rule 7(B), and reduced the sentence to concurrent 6-year burglary terms plus a 10-year habitual-offender enhancement (aggregate 16 years), remanding for entry of the revised sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wampler’s 33-year aggregate sentence is appropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B)	State: trial court did not abuse sentencing discretion; sentence appropriate given convictions and habitual-offender status	Wampler: sentence is excessive and inappropriate in light of his mental illness and the nature of the offense	Court: sentence is inappropriate under Rule 7(B); revised aggregate sentence to 16 years
Whether failure to try or adjudicate Wampler as insane or guilty but mentally ill deprived him of appropriate treatment options	State: proceeded after competency restored; no procedural error asserted about plea of insanity at trial	Wampler: (advanced via dissent) mental illness counselled consideration of NGRI or guilty but mentally ill for mandatory treatment	Court: did not overturn convictions on that ground but acknowledged the point and relied on Rule 7(B) to reduce sentence; remanded only to enter revised sentence

Wampler v. State, 57 N.E.3d 884 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (Court of Appeals decision affirming sentence; dissent highlighted mental-health concerns)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (explaining appellate review and Rule 7(B) authority to revise sentences)