Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1383 | October 24, 2018 Page 1 of 5

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

Thomas C. Allen

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Chandra K. Hein

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Aaliyah S. Craft,

Appellant-Defendant,

v. 

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff

October 24, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-1383 

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

The Honorable Frances C. Gull, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No. 

02D04-1710-F6-1147 

May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1383 | October 24, 2018 Page 2 of 5

[1] Aaliyah S. Craft appeals her one-year aggregate sentence for Level 6 felony 

maintaining a common nuisance1 and Class A misdemeanor possession of 

marijuana.2

 She argues her sentence is inappropriate based on the nature of the 

offense and her character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On October 3, 2017, officers executed a search warrant at Craft’s residence, 

where she lived with her boyfriend. In Craft’s bedroom, officers found two 

pounds of marijuana, digital scales, baggies, a glass smoking pipe, burnt ashes, 

and over $8000. Craft’s boyfriend admitted he sells marijuana from the 

residence, and Craft admitted half of the marijuana belonged to her.

[3] On October 10, 2017, the State charged Craft with Level 6 felony maintaining a 

common nuisance and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. On 

October 22, 2017, while out on bond for these charges, Craft was arrested and 

charged with Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana. On October 30, 

2017, Craft entered a plea agreement with the State wherein she pled guilty as 

charged and agreed to be placed in the drug court diversion program. Craft was 

scheduled to begin the drug court diversion program on October 31, 2017, but 

she did not appear. 

 

1 Ind. Code § 35-45-1-5(b)(3) (2017).

2 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11(b) (2017).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1383 | October 24, 2018 Page 3 of 5

[4] On November 6, 2017, Craft failed to appear at a Drug Court status hearing, 

and the trial court issued a warrant for her arrest. Officers arrested Craft on 

April 6, 2018. On May 17, 2018, the trial court sentenced Craft to one year for 

Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance and 180 days for Class A 

misdemeanor possession of marijuana. The court ordered those served 

concurrently, for an aggregate sentence of one year. 

Discussion and Decision

[5] We may revise a sentence imposed by the trial court if it is inappropriate in light 

of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Williams v. State, 

891 N.E.2d 621, 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)). 

Our review is deferential to the trial court’s decision, and our goal is to 

determine whether the appellant’s sentence is inappropriate, not whether some 

other sentence would be more appropriate. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 

(Ind. 2012), reh’g denied. We consider not only the aggravators and mitigators 

found by the trial court, but also any other factors appearing in the record. 

Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852, 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The appellant bears 

the burden of demonstrating his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 

N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). When reviewing a sentence, we “focus on the 

forest - the aggregate sentence - rather than the trees - consecutive or 

concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual 

count.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1383 | October 24, 2018 Page 4 of 5

[6] When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting 

point to determine the appropriateness of a sentence. Anglemyer v. State, 868 

N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g 878 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). The 

advisory sentence for a Level 6 felony is one year, with a sentencing range of six 

months to two and one-half years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b) (2016). A person 

convicted of a Class A misdemeanor “shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of 

not more than one (1) year.” Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2. The trial court imposed an 

aggregate one-year sentence.

[7] “[T]he defendant bears a particularly heavy burden in persuading us that his 

sentence is inappropriate when the trial court imposes the advisory sentence.” 

Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. 

Here, Craft argues her offenses were not egregious. Considering the quantity 

of marijuana found at Craft’s residence, as well as other items to suggest dealing 

in marijuana, we cannot say the nature of Craft’s offense was so unremarkable

that the advisory sentence was inappropriate. See Bonilla v. State, 907 N.E.2d 

586, 590 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (holding advisory sentence not inappropriate 

based in part that “nothing stands out about the nature of this offense”), trans. 

denied.

[8] When considering the character of the offender, one relevant fact is the 

appellant’s criminal history. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2007). The significance of criminal history in assessing a defendant’s 

character varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in 

relation to the current offense. Id. Craft’s criminal history is sparse, but her 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1383 | October 24, 2018 Page 5 of 5

other conviction is for an offense committed while on bail for the current 

offense. Craft argues she is not a danger to society and a shorter executed 

sentence3 “may scare her straight.” (Br. of Appellant at 17.) 

[9] While all these factors weigh favorably on her character, she also squandered 

an opportunity to participate in Drug Court, and her scores on the aptitude tests 

given to her as part of the Pre-Sentence Investigation indicate she is at a high 

risk to re-offend. We cannot say her sentence is inappropriate based on her 

character. See Holt v. State, 62 N.E.3d 462, 465 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (advisory 

sentence not inappropriate considering Holt’s “complete lack of respect for the 

court and the law”).

Conclusion

[10] Craft’s one-year sentence for Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance

and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana is not inappropriate based 

on the nature of her offense or her character. Accordingly, we affirm.

[11] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Robb, J., concur.

 

3 We note the trial court ordered only 183 days of Craft’s sentence executed.