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 th e defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT : ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE : CARA SCHAEFER WIENEKE GREGORY F. ZOELLER Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Plainfield, Indiana AARON J. SPOLARICH Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana


## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

RACHEL ANN RUCH, ) ) Appellant

- Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 57A03

- 1111

- CR

- 498 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee

- Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE NOBLE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Robert E. Kirsch , Judge Cause No. 5 7 D01

- 1105

- FA

- 17
April 4 , 2012 MEMORANDUM DECISION
- NOT FOR PUBLICATION BARTEAU, Senior Judge2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Rachel Ann Ruch appeals the sentence imposed upon her convictions of dealing in methamphetamine, a Class B felony, Ind. Code § 35

- 48

- 4

- 1.1 (2006 ), a nd possession of paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 35

- 48

- 4

- 8.3 (2003 ). We affirm

. ISSUE Ruch raises one issue , which we restate as: w hether her sentence is inappropriate

.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Ruch lived with her boyfriend, Kevin Ballard, in an apartment in Kimmell, Indiana. On May 1, 2011, officers went to the apartment building to serve an arrest warrant on Ruch. The officers found Ballard in his apartment and found Ruch hiding in her car in the parking lot. The police found f our bottles being used to make methamphetamine in the car where Ruch was hiding, and a search of Ruch’s purse revealed a device used for smoking methamphetamine

. Subsequently, the police obtained a search warrant for Ruch and Ballard’s apartment and found paraphernalia associated with the production of methamphetamine. The State charged Ruch with dealing in methamphetamine within 1 000 feet of a family housing complex, a Class A felon y, Ind. Code § 35

- 48

- 4

- 1.1 ; maintaining a common nuisance, a Class D fel ony, Ind. Code § 35

- 48

- 4

- 13 (2001 ); possession of methamphetamine, a Class D felo ny, Ind. Code § 35

- 48

- 4

- 6.1 (2006 ); and possession of paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 35

- 48

- 4

- 8.3

. Ruch pleaded guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine as a Class B felony and possession of paraphernalia

.3

Subsequently, the trial court sentenced Ruch to an aggregate term of fifteen years, with five years suspended to probation

. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Ruch ’s sentencing challenge is governed by Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides, in relevant part, “The 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.” In making this determination, we may look to any factors appearing in the record. Calvert
v. State , 930 N.E.2d 633, 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). A defendant must persuade the appellate court that th e sentence meets the inappropriateness standard of review. Childress v. State , 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
W e first look to the statutory range s established for the class es of the offense s . T he statutory range for a Class B felony is between six and twenty years, with the advi sory sentence being ten years. Ind. Code § 35

- 50

- 2

- 5 (2005). Furthermore, a defendant convicted of a Class A misdemeanor may not be imprisoned for more than one year. Ind. Code § 35

- 50

- 3

- 2 (1977). Ruch received a sentenc e of fifteen years for dealing in methamphetamine, with five years suspended to probation. In addition, she was sentenced to one year for possession of paraphernalia, to be served concurrently with her sentence for dealing in methamphetamine

. W e next lo ok to the nature of the offense s and the character of the offen der. The nature of the offense s is found in the details and circumstances o f the commission of the offense and the defendant’s participation. See Treadway v. State , 924 N.E.2d 621, 6424

(Ind . 2010) (noting that the defendant’s crimes were “horrific and brutal”). The character of the offender is found in what we learn of the offender’s life and conduct. See Lindsey
v. State , 916 N.E.2d 230, 241

- 42 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (reviewing the defendan t’s criminal history, probation violations, and history of misconduct while incarcerated) , trans. denied

. Our review here of the nature of the offenses shows that Ruch, together with her boyfriend, manufactured methamphetamine in her apartment and in her car . Manufacturing methamphetamine is a dangerously explosive process. A state trooper testified at Ruch’s sentencing that fifteen percent of the methamphetamine labs he has investigated in the past three years have involved fires. Thus, Ruch endangere d the other residents of the apartment building. Our review here of the character of the offender shows that Ruch, who was thirty

three years of age at sentencing, has a lengthy, if not particul arly severe, criminal history. Since 2002, Ruch has accumulat ed one Class D felony conviction for fraud, two Class A misdemeanor convictions for check deception, two class A misdemeanor convictions for conversion, one Class A misdemeanor conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, two Michigan misdeme anor convictions for retail fraud, and one Michigan misdemeanor conviction for larceny

. These convictions are different from her current convictions, but they demonstrate that Ruch refuses to follow the law. In addition, Ruch has been placed on probation five times and has had her probation revoked on four occasions.5

Ruch argues that she is a methamphetamine addict and that she manufactured the drug for personal use only. The offense to which she pleaded guilty does not differentiate between manufacturi ng methamphetamine to sell and manufacturing methamphetamine for personal use, so her claim is unavailing . Ruch also argues that a shorter sentence, followed by a longer period of probation, would allow her to get treatmen t for her addiction. A t her sent encing , Ruch conceded that she had previously attended court

ordered drug treatment, but she ultimately abandoned her treatment and returned to using methamphetamine. Given Ruch’s prior failure to respond positively to probation and
court

- ordered drug tre atment, it was not unreasonable for the trial court to choose to impose a longer executed sentence. Ruch ha s failed to persuade us that her enhanced sentence is inappropriate. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial co urt

. Affirmed. ROBB, C.J., and BARNES, J., concur.