Father loses appeal of 12-year sentence for sexual violence against daughter

A father convicted of sexually violent acts against his adult daughter could not convince the Court of Appeals of Indiana that his 12-year executed sentence should be reduced. Rather, the appellate court found that the facts would support the imposition of a longer sentence, although it declined to do so.

The case of Harry Richard Wellings, Jr. v. State of Indiana, 21A-CR-1874,began in December 2019, when 63-year-old Harry Wellings invited his 43-year-old daughter, E.W., to his motel room, saying he had holiday gifts for her children. But when E.W. arrived, Wellings began making sexual comments and offered her money to perform sexual acts on him.

E.W. tried to leave the motel room, but Wellings pinned her down on the bed and covered her mouth with his hand. He then began touching E.W. in a sexual manner and making sexually violent comments.

E.W. eventually made it out of the motel room. When she escaped, she had bruises on her back and knees and red marks on her mouth and nose.

The state subsequently charged Wellings with felony counts of attempted rape, criminal confinement, attempted incest, sexual battery and strangulation. He pleaded guilty to all counts in May 2021 and received an aggregate 12-year sentence.

Wellings challenged his sentence on appeal, asking that the Court of Appeals reduce it to 10 years, with six years executed and four years suspended. But the COA declined, agreeing with the trial court that the facts of his crimes were “simply horrendous.”

Additionally, the appellate court pointed to Wellings’ “troubling” criminal history, including a prior felony child molesting conviction and the revocation of his probation on that conviction.

“It is also important to note that our authority to review sentences under Appellate Rule 7(B) authorizes us to affirm, reduce, or increase a sentence,” Judge Rudolph Pyle wrote. “… While the nature of this offense and Wellings’ character could justify a more severe sentence, we choose to defer to the good judgment of the trial judge who was present and considered all the evidence at the sentencing hearing.”