Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 1 of 12

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Jennifer A. Joas

Madison, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Benjamin J. Shoptaw

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Anita Dustrude,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

June 26, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-127

Appeal from the Ripley Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Ryan J. King, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

69C01-1710-F4-18 & 69C01-1807-

F5-30

Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 2 of 12

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Defendant, Anita Dustrude (Dustrude), appeals her sentence 

following her guilty plea for dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 4 felony, 

Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(a)(c)(2); dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 5 

felony, I.C. § 35-48-4-1.1; maintaining a common nuisance, a Level 6 felony, 

I.C. § 35-45-1-5(c); and unlawful possession of a syringe, a Level 6 felony, I.C. § 

16-42-19-18.

[2] We affirm.

ISSUE

[3] Dustrude presents us with one issue on appeal: Whether her sentence is 

inappropriate in light of the nature of her offenses and her character. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] On October 10, 2017, a confidential informant for the Indiana State Police 

(ISP) made a controlled buy of one half of a gram of methamphetamine from 

Dustrude at her residence on Meridian Street in Sunman, Indiana. Dustrude 

had been supplying the confidential informant with methamphetamine for the 

previous six months. Based on that controlled buy, on the same day, the ISP 

procured and executed a search warrant for Dustrude’s home. The search of 

Dustrude’s residence yielded methamphetamine, three hypodermic syringes, a 

digital scale, a glass pipe, and cell phones. Dustrude claimed ownership of the 

syringes and paraphernalia. After being asked several times, she denied having 

any contraband on her person. Dustrude was arrested and transported to jail, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 3 of 12

where she again denied possessing any contraband. A strip search conducted 

by a female officer revealed a white object protruding from Dustrude’s vagina. 

Dustrude attempted to push the object further into her vaginal canal. Upon 

being informed that a search warrant for her body cavities would be procured 

and she would be transported to a hospital to have the object removed, 

Dustrude tendered the two grams of methamphetamine she had secreted. 

[5] On October 12, 2017, Dustrude was released on bond. On October 13, 2017, 

the State filed an Information under Cause Number 69C01-1710-F4-18 (Cause 

18), charging Dustrude with possession with intent to deal methamphetamine, 

dealing in methamphetamine, maintaining a common nuisance, possession of a 

hypodermic needle, and possession of paraphernalia. After being released on 

bond, Dustrude admitted to an ISP trooper that she continued to deal 

methamphetamine but intended to stop. Dustrude also expressed interest in 

cooperating with law enforcement as a confidential informant. Law 

enforcement resources were expended to develop Dustrude as an informant, but 

ultimately she did not perform any of the expected work. 

[6] The authorities continued to receive complaints regarding drug activity at 

Dustrude’s residence. On July 23, 2018, ISP performed a trash pull at 

Dustrude’s residence as part of their ongoing criminal investigation. The trash 

pull yielded mail bearing Dustrude’s name as well as a baggie that tested 

positive for methamphetamine. ISP procured a second search warrant for 

Dustrude’s home which was executed on July 23, 2018. The second search of 

Dustrude’s home produced more than one gram of methamphetamine, which 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 4 of 12

was found in Dustrude’s purse, digital scales, a glass pipe containing suspected 

methamphetamine residue, a round orange pill identified as Schedule II 

controlled substance amphetamine, and six alprazolam pills, a Schedule IV 

controlled substance. Dustrude was interviewed and admitted that she used 

and sold methamphetamine. Dustrude also identified three people to whom 

she had sold methamphetamine in Sunman during the previous week. 

[7] Three other individuals, Austin Eckstein, Atlanta Young, and Dustrude’s son, 

Dominic, were present at the time of the execution of the search warrant and 

were also arrested on drug-related charges. They were subsequently 

interviewed and admitted to having used methamphetamine in Dustrude’s 

residence. Eckstein admitted that Dustrude had provided him with 

methamphetamine repeatedly. In his interview, Dominic admitted that he 

would ask Young for methamphetamine and Young would procure the drugs 

from Dustrude for Dominic. Both Eckstein and Dominic had driven Dustrude 

to Ohio to procure more methamphetamine, a trip she made nearly daily. 

[8] On July 24, 2018, the State filed an Information under Cause Number 69C01-

1807-F5-30 (Cause 30), charging Dustrude with dealing in methamphetamine, 

possession of methamphetamine, maintaining a common nuisance, possession 

of a controlled substance, and possession of paraphernalia. On October 4, 

2018, pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, Dustrude pleaded guilty in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 5 of 12

Cause 18 to dealing in methamphetamine as a Level 4 felony,

1 maintaining a 

common nuisance, and unlawful possession of a syringe charges. Pursuant to 

the same agreement, Dustrude pleaded guilty in Cause 30 to the dealing in 

methamphetamine charge. According to the terms of the plea agreement, all of 

the sentences for the Cause 18 offenses would be served concurrent to each 

other but consecutively to the Cause 30 offense, and all other charges pending 

against Dustrude in both Causes were to be dismissed by the State. 

[9] The presentence investigation report filed in this matter revealed the following. 

Dustrude was forty-six years old at the time of sentencing. Dustrude had no 

record of criminal convictions prior to the instant offenses. She was 

unemployed at the time of the offenses and had last been employed in 2015. 

Dustrude reported that she first began consuming methamphetamine, heroin, 

and alcohol at the age of forty. Dustrude had discontinued her daily heroin 

habit at the age of forty-three but continued to use methamphetamine. She had 

never received any treatment for her substance abuse. 

[10] On October 4, 2018, the trial court held Dustrude’s sentencing hearing. 

Dustrude testified that before being arrested for the Cause 30 offenses, she was 

ingesting .4 grams of methamphetamine and drinking a fifth of vodka each day. 

Dustrude informed the trial court that, as a result of being in custody awaiting 

resolution of her case, she was sober for the first time in six years. Dustrude 

 

1

 The Level 4 felony in Cause 18 was originally charged as possession of methamphetamine with intent to 

deal. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 6 of 12

was attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings in jail. Dustrude stated that she 

was ashamed of her conduct and expressed remorse for her actions. 

[11] The trial court found as aggravating circumstances that Dustrude was free on 

bond in Cause 18 when she committed the Cause 30 offense, which the trial 

court found to be significantly aggravating, as it reflected poorly on her 

character and was an indication of an increased likelihood that she would reoffend. The trial court also found that the ongoing nature of Dustrude’s 

methamphetamine dealing was an aggravator of substantial weight. In support 

of that aggravating circumstance, the trial court found that Dustrude had sold 

methamphetamine to a controlled informant; brought two grams of the drug 

into the jail with intent to sell, despite being asked multiple times whether she 

was concealing anything on her person; upon being released on bond in Cause 

18, Dustrude expressed her desire to cease dealing but then dealt 

methamphetamine again; and that after her arrest for the Cause 30 offenses, she 

admitted to having sold methamphetamine to three other individuals that week. 

The trial court found as a moderately mitigating circumstance that Dustrude 

had pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility, finding that the cases “would 

probably be hard to fight.” (Transcript p. 58). It also found Dustrude’s lack of 

prior criminal history to be a mitigator but found that factor’s significance to be 

diminished in light of her drug use during the previous six years. 

[12] The trial court found that the aggravating circumstances substantially 

outweighed the mitigators. In Cause 18, the trial court sentenced Dustrude to 

nine years for the dealing in methamphetamine conviction and to two-year 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 7 of 12

terms for each of the other Level 6 felony convictions in that cause, to be served 

concurrently to the dealing sentence. The trial court suspended one year from 

the sentence imposed in Cause 18. In Cause 30, the trial court sentenced 

Dustrude to five years, with two years suspended, and it ordered her to serve 

that sentence consecutively to the sentence imposed in Cause 18, for an 

aggregate sentence of fourteen years, with three years suspended to probation. 

[13] Dustrude now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. 

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

[14] Dustrude contends that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of 

her offenses and her character. “Even when a trial court imposes a sentence 

within its discretion, the Indiana Constitution authorizes independent appellate 

review and revision of this sentencing decision.” Hoak v. State, 113 N.E.3d 

1209, 1209 (Ind. 2019). Thus, we may revise a sentence if, after due 

consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find that the sentence is 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the 

offender. Id. The principal role of such review is to attempt to leaven the 

outliers. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). The defendant 

bears the burden to persuade the reviewing court that the sentence imposed is 

inappropriate. Robinson v. State, 91 N.E.3d 574, 577 (Ind. 2018). 

[15] When assessing the nature of an offense, the advisory sentence is the starting 

point that the legislature selected as an appropriate sentence for the particular 

crime committed. Perry v. State, 78 N.E.3d 1, 13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 8 of 12

Dustrude pleaded guilty to dealing methamphetamine, a Level 4 felony, and to 

dealing methamphetamine, a Level 5 felony. She also pleaded guilty to two 

Level 6 felonies for maintaining a common nuisance and unlawful possession 

of a syringe. The sentencing range for a Level 4 felony is between two and 

twelve years, with the advisory sentence being six years. I.C. § 35-50-2-5.5. 

The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is between one and six years, with the 

advisory sentence being three years. I.C. § 35-50-2-6(b). Lastly, the sentencing 

range for a Level 6 felony is between six months and two and one-half years, 

with the advisory sentence being one year. I.C. § 35-50-2-7 (2016). The trial 

court sentenced Dustrude to nine years for the Level 4 felony, five years for the 

Level 5 felony, and two years for each of the Level 6 felonies. Thus, the trial 

court imposed moderately-enhanced sentences for each of the offenses, ordered 

the two Level 6 felony sentences to be served concurrently, and suspended a 

total of three years from the aggregate sentence of fourteen years. 

[16] When reviewing the nature of the offense, we look to the “the details and 

circumstances of the commission of the offense and the defendant’s 

participation.” Perry, 78 N.E.3d at 13. Dustrude sold methamphetamine to 

citizens of Ripley County on an ongoing basis before and after the commission 

of the October 10, 2017, offenses. After being charged in Cause 18, she 

admittedly continued to deal methamphetamine until she was charged with the 

Cause 30 offenses. Thus, as she acknowledges on appeal, there is ample 

evidence in the record that she possessed with intent to deal or dealt 

methamphetamine on more than the two occasions for which she was 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 9 of 12

convicted. Dustrude’s first interaction with law enforcement occurred when an 

ISP trooper spoke with her at her home about the drug activity that was 

occurring there. That interaction did not result in any charges for her, and it 

should have constituted a warning to Dustrude that she should cease her 

involvement with methamphetamine. A similar opportunity was afforded to 

her after she was charged with the Cause 18 offenses and discussed with an ISP 

trooper the fact that she was still dealing drugs. Dustrude even expressed her 

desire to cease dealing, but, again, she did not, which led to her being charged 

with the Cause 30 offenses when she was still on conditional release from the 

Cause 18 offenses. We find the fact that Dustrude brought two grams of 

methamphetamine into jail and fostered the drug use of her own son to be 

particularly condemnable. 

[17] Dustrude argues that the offenses did not merit the sentences imposed because 

she was merely an addict who dealt to support her habit, hers was a small 

operation, and she was not earning significant revenue. However, an addict 

who escalates to dealing is still inflicting the harm of drug dealing on society 

and is assisting others in pursuing their own addiction. In addition, although 

Dustrude attempts to minimize the scale of her drug dealing, it was an 

operation that involved at least three other people, one of whom was her son. 

Accordingly, we find nothing inappropriate regarding the moderately enhanced 

sentences imposed by the trial court or the trial court’s imposition of 

consecutive sentences. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 10 of 12

[18] In addition, upon reviewing a sentence for inappropriateness, we look to a

defendant’s life and conduct as illustrative of her character. Morris v. State, 114 

N.E.3d 531, 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. Dustrude argues that her 

lack of criminal record and her guilty plea merit a reduced sentence. We 

acknowledge, as did the trial court, that Dustrude led a law-abiding life until the 

age of forty, but we also find the significance of her lack of criminal record to be 

diminished by the fact that she was using heroin and methamphetamine for six 

years prior to her arrest for the Cause 18 offenses, and so was not leading a lawabiding life despite never being convicted of a crime. See Conley v. State, 972 

N.E.2d 864, 874 (Ind. 2012) (holding that the defendant’s lack of formal 

criminal history was not a substantial mitigating circumstance in light of his 

marijuana use). In addition, while it is true that Dustrude pleaded guilty and 

accepted responsibility, given the weight of the evidence in the State’s 

possession, the dismissal of the other charges, and the favorable concurrent 

sentencing provision of her plea agreement, we find that this was a pragmatic 

decision on her part which is not entitled to further consideration for sentencing 

than that already accorded to it by the trial court. See Sensback v. State, 720 

N.E.2d 1160, 1165 (Ind. 1999) (finding that a guilty plea is not substantially 

mitigating if a defendant has received a considerable benefit for his plea); see also 

Wells v. State, 836 N.E.2d 475, 479 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (holding that decision 

to plead is not entitled to substantial mitigating weight if the evidence against 

the defendant is such that his decision to plead guilty is a pragmatic one), trans. 

denied. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 11 of 12

[19] Dustrude also directs our attention to the fact that she has “never received drug 

treatment, whether it be inpatient or out-patient, court ordered or not.” 

(Appellant’s Br. p. 15). Dustrude argues that she was eligible for home 

detention, which would have afforded her the opportunity to receive treatment 

for her drug addiction. In support of her argument, Dustrude relies on Hoak v. 

State, 113 N.E.3d 1209 (Ind. 2019), in which our supreme court, conducting a 

review pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), remanded Hoak’s three-year 

sentence for Level 5 felony methamphetamine possession and her four-year 

sanction for violating her probation for Class B felony methamphetamine 

possession. Id. at 1209. In doing so, the court found it particularly significant 

that, despite her many contacts with the criminal justice system due to her drug 

addiction, she had never received any court-ordered substance abuse treatment. 

Id. On remand, the court ordered the trial court to determine if Hoak was 

eligible for community corrections, and if so, to allow her to serve half of her 

sentence there so that she could receive substance abuse treatment. Id. 

[20] We find Hoak to be distinguishable, as Dustrude pleaded guilty to two Counts 

of dealing methamphetamine, as opposed to the simple possession offenses 

involved in Hoak. In addition, unlike Hoak, here, the trial court has already 

suspended three years from Dustrude’s sentence and ordered her to receive 

substance abuse treatment as part of her probation. We also note that at 

sentencing, Dustrude reported experiencing success in her sobriety as a result of 

her attendance at Narcotics Anonymous, a commendable practice. However, 

the deference that we accord the trial court’s sentencing decision will prevail 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 12 of 12

unless it is overcome with compelling evidence of “substantial virtuous traits 

and persistent examples of good character.” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 

122 (Ind. 2015). Having been presented with neither, we find that nothing 

about Dustrude’s character renders the sentence imposed by the trial court 

inappropriate. 

CONCLUSION

[21] Based on the forgoing, we conclude that Dustrude’s fourteen-year sentence, 

with three years suspended to probation, is not inappropriate in light of the 

nature of her offenses or her character. 

[22] Affirmed. 

[23] Bailey, J. and Pyle, J. concur