Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1601-CR-173 | June 15, 2016 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

Mark Small 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller 

Attorney General 

Larry D. Allen 

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Bobbi Jo Carter, 

Appellant-Defendant, 

v. 

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff 

June 15, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No. 

21A01-1601-CR-173 

Appeal from the Fayette Circuit 

Court 

The Honorable Beth A. Butsch 

Trial Court Cause No. 

21C01-1501-F4-90 

Vaidik, Chief Judge. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1601-CR-173 | June 15, 2016 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary 

[1] Bobbi Jo Carter sold about half a gram of heroin to an informant in the 

presence of her friend’s four-year-old daughter. Carter pled guilty to Level 4 

felony dealing in a narcotic drug and Class A misdemeanor taking a minor to a 

common nuisance. The trial court sentenced Carter to concurrent terms of 

eight and a half years for the Level 4 felony and one year for the Class A 

misdemeanor. 

[2] Carter now appeals, arguing that her sentence is inappropriate. Finding that the 

sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and her 

character, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History 

[3] On the evening of January 28, 2015, Carter’s friend drove Carter to a 

confidential informant’s house in Connersville. The friend’s four-year-old 

daughter was in the back seat of the car. When they arrived at the house, 

Carter sold about half a gram of heroin to the informant in the driveway. 

Carter returned to the car, and the friend drove away. The police, who had 

been monitoring the transaction, stopped them shortly thereafter. 

[4] The State charged Carter with Count I, Level 4 felony dealing in a narcotic 

drug in the physical presence of a child less than eighteen years of age, and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1601-CR-173 | June 15, 2016 Page 3 of 5

Count II, Class A misdemeanor taking a minor to a common nuisance. Carter 

pled guilty to both charges without a plea agreement, with sentencing to be 

determined by the trial court. 

[5] At the sentencing hearing, Carter testified about traumatic events that had 

occurred in her life, including witnessing her boyfriend’s suicide and being 

raped by her step-father. Carter also testified that she had used alcohol and 

drugs since age fourteen, completed a recovery program while in jail for these 

crimes, and had checked herself out of a drug-treatment center one month 

before these crimes. Carter admitted buying about seven grams of heroin daily 

from Dayton, Ohio. She would then use five of these grams herself and sell the 

other two grams in her community. At the conclusion of the sentencing 

hearing, the trial court found two aggravating factors: (1) Carter distributed 

heroin into the community “every day,” Tr. p. 95, and (2) Carter had a history 

of criminal or delinquent behavior, including two juvenile adjudications for 

escape, felony convictions for unlawful possession of precursors and receiving a 

stolen vehicle, and one misdemeanor conviction for driving while suspended. 

The court found no mitigating factors. The court sentenced Carter to eight and 

a half years for Count I and one year for Count II, to be served concurrently. 

[6] Carter now appeals her sentence. 

Discussion and Decision 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1601-CR-173 | June 15, 2016 Page 4 of 5

[7] Carter contends that her aggregate sentence of eight and a half years is 

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

Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that an appellate court “may revise a sentence 

authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the 

Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense 

and the character of the offender.” King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 267 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2008). Because we generally defer to the judgment of trial courts in 

sentencing matters, Norris v. State, 27 N.E.3d 333, 335-36 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), 

defendants have the burden of persuading us that their sentences are 

inappropriate, Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). 

“Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the 

defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad 

of other factors that come to light in a given case.” Id. (citing Cardwell v. State, 

895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008)). 

[8] On Count I, a Level 4 felony, Carter faced a sentencing range of two to twelve 

years, with an advisory sentence of six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5. On 

Count II, a Class A misdemeanor, Carter faced a sentence of up to one year. 

Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of eight 

and a half years for Count I and one year for Count II. 

[9] Concerning the nature of the offenses, although Carter sold heroin to an 

informant during a supervised buy, the child who was present was much 

younger than eighteen years old. Furthermore, Carter’s character convinces us 

that her sentence is not inappropriate. Carter has felony convictions for 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1601-CR-173 | June 15, 2016 Page 5 of 5

unlawful possession of precursors and receiving a stolen vehicle, a 

misdemeanor conviction for driving while suspended, and two juvenile 

adjudications for escape. Although Carter completed a recovery program while 

in jail for the crimes in this case, she checked herself out of a drug-treatment 

center one month before these crimes. As the trial court noted, Carter, on a 

daily basis, brought about seven grams of heroin from Dayton, Ohio, and sold 

two of these grams into her local community. Despite her previous contacts 

with the criminal-justice system and opportunities for rehabilitation, Carter has 

not been deterred from criminal activities. Her character does not warrant a 

reduction in her sentence. 

[10] After due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we cannot say that Carter 

persuaded us that her aggregate sentence of eight and a half years is 

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

[11] Affirmed. 

Barnes, J., and Mathias, J., concur.