John Paul Woolley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 83A01-1612-CR-2881

In October 2015 DCS and police found four Woolley children (ages 8, 5, 4, 2) locked in squalid, feces‑smeared rooms of the family home; children were malnourished, had lice/fleas, developmental delays, and required hospitalization.
The children were largely non‑verbal, not toilet trained, ate only baby food (except the oldest), and showed failure‑to‑thrive and other medical/developmental impairments.
The home was condemned; neighbors had not known children lived there while parents frequently were seen outside by the pool.
John Paul Woolley pleaded guilty to four counts of Level 3 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury, without a plea agreement.
The trial court sentenced Woolley to the maximum: 16 years on each count to be served consecutively, for an aggregate 64‑year term.
Woolley appealed, arguing his aggregate sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 64‑year aggregate sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B)	State: sentence reflects heinous, prolonged neglect and serious harm to children; trial court reasonably exercised discretion	Woolley: aggregate maximum is excessive given lack of prior criminal history and his disabilities	Court affirmed: sentence not inappropriate given the horrific nature of abuse and Woolley’s character as shown by prolonged, severe neglect

Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 2012) (articulates scope of appellate review under Rule 7(B))
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (sentencing is discretionary and appellate deference to trial court’s judgment)
Pierce v. State, 949 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. 2011) (advisory sentence as legislative starting point)
Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111 (Ind. 2015) (comparative framing of offense/character for Rule 7(B))
Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)