Wallace v. State
| Docket Number | 22A-CR-2283 |
| Decision Date | 15 March 2023 |
| Parties | Vincent F. Wallace, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court The Honorable Valeri Haughton Judge Trial Court Cause No. 53C02-1702-FB-127
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Patrick M. Schrems Monroe County Public Defender's Office Bloomington, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Jodi Kathryn Stein Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
[¶1] Vincent Wallace appeals his consecutive, maximum sentences, totaling twenty-eight years, all executed in the Department of Correction ("DOC"), for his two convictions for sexual misconduct with a minor, one a Class B felony and the other a Class C felony. Wallace argues that: 1) the trial court abused its discretion by issuing an inadequate sentencing statement and failing to consider several mitigators; and 2) Wallace's sentences are inappropriate. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that Wallace's sentences are not inappropriate. Accordingly, we affirm.
[¶2] Wallace raises two issues on appeal, which we restate as:
[¶3] S.S. ("Mother") had three daughters, S.H., Si.H., and A.S. Mother began dating Wallace in 2004. Almost immediately thereafter, when S.H. and Si.H. were approximately ages nine or ten, Wallace moved in with the family. Over the next decade, Wallace controlled, isolated, manipulated, degraded, battered, and inappropriately touched the girls. Wallace also squandered the family's limited resources, pitted the girls against one another, and beat the family pets in front of the family.
[¶4] Wallace inappropriately touched and sexually exploited the girls in myriad ways, at times daily. Wallace told the girls to dress in their "sluttiest clothes," forced them to wear their mother's lingerie, used "sex toys" on them, forced them to watch pornography and listen to him and their mother have intercourse, and forced Si.H. to have intercourse with him and Mother. Tr. Vol. II p. 36. Wallace seized on moments alone with the girls at home, in swimming pools, and in the car to inappropriately touch them and force them to perform sexual acts on him. Wallace threatened that the girls "would be taken away from [their] mom, separated[,] bad stuff would happen to all of [them], and [their] mom would go to jail" if the girls reported his abuse. Id. at 35-36.
[¶5] The investigation into Wallace's conduct, unfortunately, did not begin until 2016. During his interviews with law enforcement, Wallace admitted to inappropriately touching S.H. and Si.H. and to having "threesomes" with Si.H. and Mother. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 31. Wallace stated that "there was no romantic cuddling or kissing" because "the girls did not like that kind of stuff and just wanted the sexual attention." Id. at 30. Wallace also repeatedly blamed the girls for initiating sexual contact.
[¶6] On February 9, 2017, the State charged Wallace with nine counts of sexual misconduct with a minor. On August 26, 2022, Wallace and the State executed a plea agreement wherein Wallace agreed to plead guilty to Counts II and VIII and agreed that his sentences would run consecutively. Count II alleged that Wallace had S.H. perform oral sex on him, and Count VIII alleged that Wallace touched Si.H.'s breasts with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of Wallace or Si.H. That same day, the trial court held a sentencing hearing and entered judgments of conviction on Counts II and VIII.[1]
[¶7] During the sentencing hearing, Wallace admitted to inserting his penis into S.H.'s mouth when she was between the ages of fourteen and sixteen and to touching Si.H.'s breasts with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either himself or Si.H. when Si.H. was between the ages of fourteen and sixteen.
[¶8] The State offered the testimony of Indiana State Police Trooper Julie Deal, who testified regarding the investigation into Wallace's offenses. Trooper Deal testified that S.H. and Si.H. were approximately ages nine or ten when Wallace began to abuse them. She further testified that Wallace threatened that the girls would be taken away from their mother if they reported him and that, in addition, Wallace "plac[ed] the blame" on the girls during law enforcement interviews. Tr. Vol. II p. 21.
[¶9] The State also offered victim impact statements from S.H., Si.H., A.S., all of whom stated that Wallace groomed, manipulated, and threatened them and that he inappropriately touched them in myriad ways, at times daily.
[¶10] Wallace offered the following statement to the trial court:
Okay. First and foremost, I'd like to apologize to everyone directly involved and indirectly involved. Do I have remorse for everything I've been involved with, yes. And it's not because I'm here in Court. Everything that happened was wrong, no doubt about it. Just like the covid scenario two weeks ago, things don't always appear as they seem. And I'm going to leave it at that, I'm not going to waste the Court's time. Thank you.
Id. at 47. Wallace advanced as mitigators: 1) Wallace's purportedly minor criminal history, which includes a prior conviction for neglect of Si.H.; 2) Wallace apologized and expressed remorse; and 3) the hardship to Wallace's mother if Wallace was unable to care for her. Wallace requested advisory sentences.
[¶11] In its oral sentencing statement, the trial court stated that Wallace "ruined the lives of at least three people." Id. at 50. Regarding Wallace's apology, the trial court stated, Id. at 51. The trial court also stated, regarding Wallace's criminal history, that Wallace's criminal conduct began when he started abusing the girls when they were approximately ages nine or ten and that, because Wallace's Id. at 52. In addition, the trial court stated, regarding Wallace's hardship claim, that Wallace had siblings who could care for their mother.
[¶12] The trial court found four aggravators: 1) Wallace violated the conditions of his pretrial release by using illegal drugs; 2) Wallace was in a position of care, custody, or control of the victims; 3) the ages of the victims; and 4) the harm, injury, loss, or damage to the victims was significantly greater than necessary to prove the commission of the offense. Regarding this last aggravator, the trial noted that Wallace: 1) began grooming the girls when they were approximately ages nine or ten; 2) controlled and isolated the girls; 3) committed acts of animal abuse in front of the girls; 4) threatened that the girls would be taken from Mother if they reported him; 5) manipulated and pitted the girls against one another; and 6) treated the girls like "sexual play things" and "made them [his] receptacles at any time that [he] chose to use them." Id. at 53. The trial court did not find any mitigators.
[¶13] The trial court sentenced Wallace to the maximum sentence of twenty years on Count II and the maximum sentence of eight years on Count VIII, all executed consecutively in the DOC. Wallace now appeals.
1. Abuse of Sentencing Discretion
[¶14] Wallace argues that the trial court abused its discretion by 1) failing to issue an adequate sentencing statement; and 2) failing to find several mitigating factors. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
[¶15] Sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and are reviewed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007) (citing Smallwood v. State, 773 N.E.2d 259, 263 (Ind. 2002)), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007); Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1197 (Ind. 2018). "An abuse occurs only if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom." Schuler v. State, 132 N.E.3d 903, 904 (Ind. 2019) (citing Rice v. State, 6 N.E.3d 940, 943 (Ind. 2014)).
[¶16] A trial court abuses its discretion in a number of ways, including:
(1) "failing to enter a sentencing statement at all"; (2) entering a sentencing statement in which the aggravating and mitigating factors are not supported by the record; (3) entering a sentencing statement that does not include reasons that are clearly supported by the record and advanced for consideration; or (4) entering a sentencing statement in which the reasons provided in the statement are "improper as a matter of law."
Ackerman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 171, 193 (Ind. 2016) (quoting Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 490-91), cert. denied.
[¶17] "This Court presumes that a court that conducts a sentencing hearing renders its decision solely on the basis of relevant and probative evidence." Schuler 132 N.E.3d at 905. "When an abuse of discretion occurs, this Court will remand for resentencing only if 'we cannot say with...
To continue reading
Request your trial