Wampler v. State
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 267
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- In June 2014 Anthony J. Wampler, who had long been fixated on K.S., entered K.S.’s home at night through a broken laundry-room window while K.S. was sleeping, watched him, and took a beer and a posted inspirational quote; he had previously left notes and returned an axe taken from K.S.’s yard.
- K.S. discovered the break‑in, matched a mailbox note to a phone number, contacted Wampler, and Wampler admitted “creeping around” and later admitted the break‑in to police. Wampler posted on Facebook admitting taking the beer and quote.
- The State charged two counts of Class B felony burglary and one count of Class D residential entry and alleged Wampler was an habitual offender; the charges were based on conduct before a July 1, 2014 statutory amendment.
- Wampler was found incompetent in November 2014, treated, later certified competent in February 2015, tried in a bench trial, convicted on the burglary counts, and adjudicated an habitual offender.
- The trial court entered convictions only on the burglary counts (double‑jeopardy concerns) and imposed concurrent 18‑year terms, enhanced by 15 years for habitual‑offender status, for an aggregate 33‑year sentence. Wampler appealed, arguing the sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wampler) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wampler’s 33‑year aggregate sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B) in light of the nature of the offense and his character | Sentence is excessive: only took minor items (one beer, a paper), minimal criminal history, serious mental‑health issues, and the 2014 amendment would have precluded the habitual enhancement | Sentence is appropriate: burglary was invasive and disturbing (entered while victim slept; long‑term stalking/obsession; prior felonies support habitual enhancement); ameliorative statutory change does not apply to crimes before July 1, 2014 | Affirmed: sentence not inappropriate; habitual enhancement properly applied under the law in effect when offense occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (appellate review under Rule 7(B) gives due consideration to trial court but need not be extremely deferential)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (burden on defendant to persuade appellate court that sentence is inappropriate)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (Rule 7(B) review focuses on aggregate sentence and tempering outliers)
- Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 2010) (Rule 7(B) review may consider all aspects of penal consequences)
- Cox v. State, 38 N.E.3d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (amelioration doctrine does not apply to the 2014 revisions of the habitual‑offender statute)