Case Title: Livingston v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 18S-CR-623

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2018-12-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 18S-CR-623 
Lisa Livingston, 
Appellant (Defendant below), 
–v– 
State of Indiana, 
Appellee (Plaintiff below). 
Decided: December 28, 2018 
Appeal from the Orange Circuit Court, No. 59C01-1308-FA-546 
The Honorable Steven L. Owen, Judge 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, 
No. 18A-CR-716 
 
Per Curiam Opinion 
Chief Justice Rush, and Justices David, Massa, and Goff concur. 
Justice Slaughter dissents. 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Dec 28 2018, 4:06 pm
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-CR-623 | December 28, 2018 
Page 2 of 6 
Per Curiam. 
Without a plea agreement, Lisa Livingston pled guilty to multiple drug 
charges and admitted to being a habitual substance offender. The trial 
court sentenced Livingston to an aggregate sentence of thirty years to be 
served in the Indiana Department of Correction. Finding this to be a rare 
and exceptional case, we grant Livingston’s petition to transfer and, 
pursuant to Appellate Rule 7(B), reduce Livingston’s sentence to twenty-
three years with the time remaining to be served in community 
corrections. 
In August 2013, police officers received information that Livingston 
was manufacturing and dealing methamphetamine. Officer Andry was 
familiar with Livingston and drove to her home. Andry was in the process 
of securing a search warrant when Livingston arrived. She was 
cooperative. Police recovered several baggies of methamphetamine 
totaling 3.35 grams, one baggie of cocaine weighing 1.89 grams,1 and items 
known to be used in manufacturing methamphetamine.       
Livingston was charged in the Orange Circuit Court with two Class A 
felony counts of dealing in methamphetamine; one Class C felony count of 
possession of methamphetamine; and two Class D felony counts, 
possession of cocaine and possession of two or more chemical reagents or 
precursors with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance. 
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, pp. 18-19.) The State also alleged Livingston is a 
habitual substance offender.    
In November 2013, Livingston posted a $75,000 property bond and was 
released on the condition she reside at Bliss House, a substance abuse 
recovery home. Over the next four years, Livingston filed ten motions to 
continue her trial. The State filed no objections (Trans. Pet. p. 9), and the 
                                                 
1 Although the Court of Appeals decision indicates the methamphetamine weighed 5.6 grams 
and the cocaine weighed 8.9 grams, the Indiana State Police lab report indicates the weights 
were 3.35 grams and 1.89 grams respectively. (See Appellant’s App. Vol. II, pp. 133-34.) 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-CR-623 | December 28, 2018 
Page 3 of 6 
court granted each motion. During these four years, Livingston 
accomplished much. 
Livingston lived in Bliss House for one year and then moved to its 
transitional house for two years. She later served as chairperson of the 
Bliss House alumni and was on the Bliss House Committee for two years. 
In 2014, Livingston and her nephew started a roofing business, which 
provided her with income. In 2017, Livingston used her own money and 
donations to open BreakAway Home in Floyd County—a home for 
women recovering from addiction. Livingston has served as the Executive 
Director and night manager of BreakAway since its inception.  
In early 2017, Livingston asked to be placed in a pre-trial detention 
program, which the court denied. Livingston voluntarily placed herself in 
a program with Floyd County Community Corrections. She reported in 
person two times per week and took random drug screens, all of which 
were negative. 
On October 30, 2017, Livingston appeared in court and, without a plea 
agreement, pled guilty to all charges and admitted to being a habitual 
substance offender.  
On March 12, 2018, the court held Livingston’s sentencing hearing. 
Livingston asked the court to allow her to serve her sentence in 
community corrections. The State opposed placement in community 
corrections but indicated that statutes would permit it. (Tr. pp. 24-25, 94.) 
Andry, now retired after thirty years as a police officer, testified the more 
he has been around Livingston the more “impressed” and “confident” he 
is that “what she is doing [with BreakAway] is important work.” (Tr. p. 
39.) Andry has seen nothing indicating Livingston will not “follow 
through with what she’s started and what she’s been doing” if sentenced 
to serve her time in community corrections. (Tr. p. 42.) “I don’t have a 
crystal ball, but I’ve never, I guess staked my reputation on anybody 
before for that, so that’s, that’s the feeling I have about it[.]” (Tr. pp. 42-
43.)  
Janeen Niehauss supervised Livingston’s voluntary participation in the 
day reporting program run by Floyd County Community Corrections. At 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-CR-623 | December 28, 2018 
Page 4 of 6 
the time, Livingston was residing in Floyd County at BreakAway home, 
serving as the night manager. Niehauss, a program manager for day 
reporting, testified that Livingston had been “completely compliant” for 
381 days and met all the requirements for the day reporting program. (Tr. 
pp. 66-67.) Niehauss further testified that the community corrections 
program is willing to take and supervise Livingston for the duration of 
whatever sentence the court imposed. (Tr. p. 75.) Numerous letters written 
by family, friends, and community members in support of Livingston 
were also admitted into evidence.   
The trial court sentenced Livingston to an aggregate term of thirty 
years to be served in the Department of Correction. The Court of Appeals 
affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the sentencing decision and 
declining to revise Livingston’s sentence. Livingston v. State, No. 18A-CR-
716, 2018 WL 4782281 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2018).   
    The Indiana Constitution, Article 7, Section 4, grants an appellate 
court the power to revise a sentence in a criminal case. That authority is 
implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), which allows an appellate 
court to revise a sentence it finds “is inappropriate in light of the nature of 
the offense and the character of the offender.” Aside from revising the 
length of a sentence, the place where a sentence is to be served is also an 
appropriate focus for our review under 7(B). See Biddinger v. State, 868 
N.E.2d 407, 414 (Ind. 2007); Hole v. State, 851 N.E.2d 302, 304 n.4 (Ind. 
2006). The court’s role under Rule 7(B) is to “leaven the outliers,” Cardwell 
v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008), and we reserve our 7(B) 
authority for exceptional cases. Taylor v. State, 86 N.E.3d 157, 165 (Ind. 
2017).  
 We find this to be an exceptional case. The trial court’s oral sentencing 
statement indicates the court thoughtfully considered the mitigating and 
aggravating circumstances in reaching its sentencing decision. 
Nevertheless, “[e]ven where a trial court has not abused its discretion in 
sentencing, the Indiana Constitution authorizes independent appellate 
review and revision of a trial court’s sentencing decision.” Eckelbarger v. 
State, 51 N.E.3d 169, 170 (Ind. 2016). After independent review, we 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-CR-623 | December 28, 2018 
Page 5 of 6 
conclude the sentence imposed in this case is inappropriate in light of 
Livingston’s offenses and character.  
Although the offenses for which Livingston was convicted are serious, 
she fully cooperated with police and pled guilty to all charges without the 
benefit of a plea agreement. And while Livingston committed the offenses 
in 2013, effective July 1, 2014, the legislature has instructed courts to 
construe the criminal code “in accordance with its general purposes, to . . . 
reduce crime by promoting the use of evidence based best practices for 
rehabilitation of offenders in a community setting” and “keep dangerous 
prisoners in prison by avoiding the use of scarce prison space for 
nonviolent offenders.” Ind. Code § 35-32-1-1(5), (6). The evidence shows 
Livingston has committed no offenses since her arrest in August 2013 and 
has dedicated her time to becoming a productive member of her 
community and helping others who suffer from addiction.  
Because the crimes for which Livingston pled guilty occurred in 2013, 
the mandatory minimum sentence she may receive is twenty-three years. 
See I.C. §§ 35-50-2-4 (Supp. 2005), -10 (Supp. 2006). We revise Livingston’s 
sentence to twenty-three years and direct that whatever time remains be 
served in community corrections. We acknowledge that placing a 
defendant in community corrections for such a lengthy period is highly 
unusual. But we believe it to be appropriate in these unique 
circumstances, which include the willingness of Floyd County 
Community Corrections to supervise Livingston. If Livingston violates the 
terms of her community corrections placement, then the trial court may 
revoke the placement. See I.C. § 35-38-2.6-5.     
We remand to the trial court to issue a revised sentencing order 
consistent with this opinion. We summarily affirm the remainder of the 
Court of Appeals decision.  See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).                
 
Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, and Goff, JJ., concur. 
Slaughter, J., dissents, believing that transfer should be denied.  
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-CR-623 | December 28, 2018 
Page 6 of 6 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL L A N T 
Stacy R. Uliana 
Bargersville, Indiana 
Jennifer H. Culotta 
New Albany, Indiana 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL L E E 
Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 
Attorney General of Indiana 
Laura R. Anderson 
Deputy Attorney General 
Indianapolis, Indiana