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.

A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Mark Small Indianapolis, Indiana A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLEE Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General
Larry D. Allen Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana



### IN THE 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Bobbi Jo Carter, A

ppellan t -Defendant,

v. 

### State of Indiana, A

ppelle e -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 fo ur-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 senten ced 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 senten ce 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. Th e friend’s four-year-old daughter was in the back seat of the ca r. When they arrived at the house, Carter sold about half a gram of heroin to the in formant in the driveway. Carter returned to the car, and the fr iend drove away. The police, who had been monitoring the transaction, stopped them shortly thereafter.

[4] The State charged Carter wi th Count I, Level 4 felony dealing in a narcotic drug in the physical presence of a ch ild less than eighteen years of age, andCourt 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 test ified about traumatic events that had occurred in her life, including witnessi ng 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 reco very program while in jail for these crimes, and had checked herself out of a drug-treatment center one month before these crimes. Carter admitted bu ying about seven grams of heroin daily from Dayton, Ohio. She would then use fi ve 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 aggravat ing 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 conv iction for driving while suspended. The court found no mitigating factors. The court sentenced Ca rter 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 DecisionCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1601-CR-173 | June 15, 2016 Page 4 of 5 [7] Carter contends that her aggregate sent ence 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 consider ation of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropri ate 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 defe r 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 pers uading us that their sentences are inappropriate, Thompson v. State , 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “Whether a sentence is inappropriate ulti mately 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 face d a sentencing range of two to twelve years, with an advisory sentence of si x years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5. On Count II, a Class A misdemeanor, Carter fa ced 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 superv ised buy, the child who was present was much younger than eighteen years old. Furthe rmore, Carter’s character convinces us that her sentence is not inappropriate. Carter has felony convictions forCourt 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 Cart er completed a recovery program while in jail for the crimes in this case, sh e checked herself out of a drug-treatment center one month before these crimes. As the trial court no ted, Carter, on a daily basis, brought about seven grams of heroin from Dayton, Ohio, and sold two of these grams into her local commu nity. Despite her previous contacts with the criminal-justice system and oppo rtunities for rehabili tation, 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 cour t’s decision, we cannot say that Carter persuaded us that her aggregate senten ce 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.