In the case of Axel Sundling, the defendant was charged with two counts of dealing in a narcotic drug after selling fentanyl to a law enforcement informant in a Walmart parking lot in Wabash County, Indiana. The transactions occurred in June and July 2022, and involved significant quantities of fentanyl and para-fluorofentanyl. During these transactions, Sundling warned the informant about the potency and dangers of the drugs, even recounting a personal incident where his wife required Narcan after using the fentanyl he sold. Following these controlled buys, Sundling was charged with two Level 4 felonies for dealing in narcotics.
Directly from the case file: “In June and July 2022, law enforcement, via an informant, conducted two controlled purchases of fentanyl from Sundling in a Walmart parking lot in Wabash County, Indiana. In the first transaction, Sundling sold the informant 1.04 grams of fentanyl. Sundling also gave the informant syringes and Narcan, telling him the drugs were “fire” and warning him they were “dangerous,” In the second transaction, Sundling sold the informant 3.02 grams of fentanyl and para-fluorofentanyl. During this second buy, Sundling told the informant that the drugs were of higher quality than the last ones Sundling had sold him and that the informant “needed to be careful because it was very dangerous, that [Sundling] had to Narcan his wife,” Sundling also instructed the informant on how to dilute the drugs so they would not be as dangerous.”
Sundling’s legal strategy involved repeatedly challenging the court’s jurisdiction over him, claiming to be a “sovereign citizen.” In his motions to dismiss the charges, Sundling argued that the trial court lacked both subject matter and personal jurisdiction because he claimed to be a sovereign citizen. Since the alleged offenses occurred in Wabash County, the Wabash Circuit Court had both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over Sundling. Additionally, personal jurisdiction does not require a defendant to be a U.S. citizen; it is established based on the defendant’s actions within the state’s territory.
The trial court denied Sundling’s motions, ruling that his sovereign citizen claim did not exempt him from the court’s authority. Sundling was subsequently tried and found guilty on both counts. The court sentenced him to a total of 11 years in prison, a decision that Sundling also appealed, arguing that his sentence was inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). This rule allows for the revision of a sentence if it is deemed inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Sundling contended that his sentence, which was near the maximum for a Level 4 felony, was excessive.
However, the court upheld the sentence, citing several aggravating factors. The severity of Sundling’s crimes, his knowledge of the dangers associated with fentanyl, and his criminal history were all considered. Sundling had a long record of criminal behavior, including prior felonies and misdemeanors, multiple probation revocations, and a lack of cooperation with the court process. His actions demonstrated a disregard for the law and public safety, justifying the harsh sentence imposed by the trial court.
Here is his record: Sundling’s criminal history began in 1996 when he was a juvenile and has continued throughout his adult life. Sundling has four prior felony convictions, including convictions for domestic battery with bodily injury to a pregnant woman, unlawful possession of a syringe, possession of a narcotic drug, and dealing in a narcotic drug. Sundling has 11 prior misdemeanor convictions, including convictions for conversion, check deception, operating while intoxicated, resisting law enforcement, and battery resulting in bodily injury. Sundling has also had his probation revoked numerous times. Sundling was found in contempt multiple times during the pendency of this cause, and he refused to cooperate with the probation department during his presentence investigation interview. Additionally, Sundling reported during previous presentence investigations that he had a history of abusing alcohol and drugs, including opiates and pain pills.
Sundling’s appeal was denied, affirming the trial court’s decisions on both the jurisdictional challenge and the appropriateness of the sentence.