Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1412-CR-451 | July 27, 2015 Page 1 of 8

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

Donald J. Frew

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Chandra K. Hein

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Bonnie Motsch,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

July 27, 2015

Court of Appeals Cause No.

02A03-1412-CR-451

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

Cause No. 02D06-1401-FD-16;

02D06-1407-FD-721; 02D06-1405-

CM-2130

The Honorable Frances C. Gull, 

Judge

The Honorable Samuel Keirns, 

Magistrate

Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1412-CR-451 | July 27, 2015 Page 2 of 8

Case Summary

[1] Bonnie Motsch appeals her sentence of six years after pleading guilty to Class D 

felony theft, Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, Class A 

misdemeanor driving while suspended, and Class D felony possession of a 

controlled substance. We affirm.

Issue

[2] Motsch raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as whether her sentence is 

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

Facts

[3] On December 29, 2013, a Walmart loss prevention officer reported a theft 

incident involving Motsch. Motsch had placed several goods in her purse and 

went beyond all points of sale without paying. When the loss prevention officer

attempted to stop her, Motsch started to run away. During the pursuit, Motsch 

attempted to hide her purse under a car. The purse was recovered with the 

many stolen items inside. Motsch admitted to stealing the items with the 

intention to resell them. On January 3, 2014, the State charged Motsch with 

Class D felony theft under cause number 02D06-1401-FD-16 (“FD-16”).

[4] While out on bond for the FD-16 offense, Motsch drove an uninsured vehicle 

with a suspended license. While operating the car illegally with other 

passengers inside, Motsch placed a hypodermic needle on the dashboard. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1412-CR-451 | July 27, 2015 Page 3 of 8

When pulled over by police officers, Motsch denied that any illegal substances 

were in the vehicle. After obtaining consent from the owner to search the 

vehicle, officers found Motsch’s hypodermic needle, which she admitted was 

hers and had been used to inject heroin a few days prior. On May 29, 2014, 

Motsch was charged with possession of paraphernalia and driving while 

suspended, both class A misdemeanors, along with two traffic infractions of 

operating a motor vehicle without financial responsibility and improper display 

of a license plate on a vehicle, under cause number 02D06-1405-CM-2130 

(“CM-2130”). 

[5] After Motsch failed to appear for a hearing, a warrant was issued for her arrest. 

On July 1, 2014, she was arrested and had a controlled substance in her 

possession. Motsch was charged with possession of a controlled substance, a 

class D felony, under cause number 02D06-1407-FD-721 (“FD-721”). She 

committed this offense while out on bond under both FD-16 and CM-2130. On 

July 21, 2014, Motsch entered into a plea agreement whereby she agreed to 

plead guilty to theft, possession of paraphernalia, driving while suspended, and 

possession of a controlled substance. The State dismissed the traffic infractions. 

[6] On November 20, 2014, under FD-16, Motsch was sentenced to two years and 

ordered to pay $103.11 in restitution. Under CM-2130, Motsch was sentenced 

concurrently to one year for possession of paraphernalia and one year for 

driving while suspended. Under FD-721, Motsch was sentenced to three years. 

The sentences will be served consecutively for an aggregate sentence of six 

years. Motsch now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1412-CR-451 | July 27, 2015 Page 4 of 8

Analysis

[7] We assess whether Motsch’s sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate 

Rule 7(B) in light of her character and the nature of the offense. See Anglemyer 

v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007). Although Rule 7(B) does not require 

us to be “extremely” deferential to a trial court’s sentencing decision, we still 

must give due consideration to that decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 

867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We also understand and recognize the unique 

perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a 

defendant bears the burden of persuading the appellate court that his or her 

sentence is inappropriate.” Id. 

[8] The principal role of Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the 

outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged 

with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived 

‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 

2008). We “should 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.” Id. Whether a sentence is inappropriate 

ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, 

the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a 

given case. Id. at 1224. When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence 

under Rule 7(B), we may consider all aspects of the penal consequences 

imposed by the trial court in sentencing the defendant, including whether a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1412-CR-451 | July 27, 2015 Page 5 of 8

portion of the sentence was suspended. Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 

1025 (Ind. 2010). 

[9] Regarding the nature of the offenses, it is important to consider that Motsch 

committed several crimes within a short time period. We acknowledge that 

Motsch’s offenses were not particularly egregious or heinous; however, the 

various crimes were committed less than a year apart. 

[10] Motsch not only stole $100 worth of merchandise from Walmart, but the items 

she stole were too damaged to be returned to stock. Less than a month later, 

while out on bond for that offense, Motsch drove an uninsured vehicle with a 

suspended license. While operating the vehicle with other occupants inside, 

Motsch set a hypodermic needle on the dashboard. After being pulled over by 

police and questioned about contraband inside the car, Motsch did not inform 

officers about the hypodermic needle on the dashboard and told officers that the 

vehicle contained no contraband. Following this arrest, Motsch was ordered to 

report to a drug court program.

[11] Twenty-one days after Motsch entered into the drug court program, Motsch 

tested positive for both morphine and alcohol use. Two days later, Motsch 

tested positive for drugs again. Less than a month after entering the program, 

Motsch skipped at least one drug screen and was subsequently terminated from 

the program. Motsch also twice failed to appear in court for a drug court 

program status hearing and warrants were issued for her arrest. When she was 

arrested, she had a controlled substance in her possession.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1412-CR-451 | July 27, 2015 Page 6 of 8

[12] Along with her contention about the nature of the offenses, Motsch claims that 

her sentence is inappropriate in light of her character. We acknowledge 

positive character traits such as Motsch accepting responsibility for her 

wrongdoings and being remorseful about her actions, as indicated by her 

pleading guilty. However, we see no “substantial virtuous traits or persistent 

examples of good character.” See Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 

2015). These positive attributes cannot be evaluated in isolation without 

understanding the totality of Motsch’s character. Motsch argues she has a 

“sincere desire” to make the necessary changes to become a sober individual. 

Sentencing Tr. p. 9. She further contends that her “life is and has been entirely 

out of control . . . . ” Id. at p. 8. However, the courts have provided Motsch 

with ample opportunities to seek help in dealing with her drug addiction and to 

take control of her life. 

[13] Prior to her current offenses, Motsch had several incidents of involvement with 

the criminal justice system, which all seem to be drug related. In 2002, Motsch 

was charged with public intoxication. In 2003, Motsch was charged with 

resisting law enforcement. Less than a year later after being charged with 

resisting law enforcement, Motsch was charged with burglary, forgery, and 

identity deception along with a misdemeanor conviction for paraphernalia

possession. In addition to the multiple charges Motsch has faced in the past, 

Motsch has participated in five different substance abuse programs. Motsch 

was unsatisfactorily discharged multiple times from various home detention 

and community corrections programs. Although Motsch does not have a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1412-CR-451 | July 27, 2015 Page 7 of 8

juvenile record, she has clearly established a longstanding history as an adult

criminal.

[14] Motsch has failed to recognize defendants are “not entitled to serve a sentence 

in either probation or a community corrections program. Rather, placement in 

either is a ‘matter of grace’ and a ‘conditional liberty that is a favor, not a 

right.”’ Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999) (quoting Gilfillen v. State, 

582 N.E.2d 821, 824 (Ind. 1991)). Motsch is a repeat violator of probation, 

parole, home detention, and drug court programs. Despite the repeated efforts 

to rehabilitate Motsch through various drug programs and lenient sentences, 

Motsch continuously abused drugs and disobeyed the law.

[15] It is clearly evident that the prior imposition of more lenient sentences and 

implementing drug programs for Motsch has not been an effective means of 

dealing with her drug addiction and repeated criminal history. Based on the 

discussed factors above, Motsch’s various offenses warrant her sentence. 

[16] This case is distinguishable from the recent case of Norris v. State, 27 N.E.3d 

333, (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), upon which Motsch relies. In Norris, our court held 

that a twenty-year sentence was inappropriate in light of nature of offense and 

defendant’s character. In Norris, the defendant had a minimal criminal history 

and had previously completed home detention and probation successfully. By 

contrast, as the state notes, “Motsch has continually violated the terms and 

conditions of probation, parole, home detention, and, most recently, the Drug 

Court Program.” Appellee’s Br. p. 6. The defendant in Norris committed one 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1412-CR-451 | July 27, 2015 Page 8 of 8

offense, whereas Motsch’s actions while out on bond alone were significantly 

more numerous. Given the nature of Motsch’s aggregate offenses and her poor 

character, we cannot say that the trial court’s sentence was inappropriate. 

Conclusion

[17] Motsch has not established that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offenses or her character. We affirm. 

[18] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Bailey, J., concur.