Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-21 | April 17, 2018 Page 1 of 7

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 C. Swanson, Jr.

Deputy Public Defender

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Evan Matthew Comer

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Porshea N. Gentry,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 17, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-21

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

The Honorable Frances C. Gull, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

02D06-1507-F4-46

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-21 | April 17, 2018 Page 2 of 7

Statement of the Case

[1] Porshea N. Gentry appeals her sentence following her convictions for dealing in 

a narcotic drug, as a Level 4 felony, and two counts of dealing in cocaine, as 

Level 5 felonies. Gentry presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether 

her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and her

character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On May 18, 2015, a confidential information (“CI”) for the Fort Wayne Police 

Department (“FWPD”) purchased one-half gram of cocaine from Gentry in 

exchange for $50. And on June 9, the CI again purchased one-half gram of 

cocaine from Gentry in exchange for $50. On June 25, an officer with the 

FWPD conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle after the officer observed Gentry, 

who was the main suspect in a narcotics investigation, get into the passenger 

seat. The officer conducted a search of the vehicle and found a total of 7.2 

grams of cocaine, five plastic baggies, a digital scale with cocaine residue on it, 

and $1,447 in cash. The State charged Gentry with two counts of dealing in 

cocaine, as Level 5 felonies, and one count of possession of a narcotic drug with 

intent to deliver, as a Level 4 felony.

[3] On October 13, Gentry pleaded guilty to all three charges. The trial court took 

Gentry’s guilty plea under advisement and placed her into the Drug Court 

Diversion Program. As a condition of her placement, Gentry agreed to appear 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-21 | April 17, 2018 Page 3 of 7

in court as required, to report to her case manager as directed, and to comply 

with sanctions imposed by the court. 

[4] On February 22, 2016, Gentry failed to appear for a hearing. The next day, a 

warrant was issued for Gentry’s arrest. Gentry was arrested on October 30, 

2017. On November 6, the State filed a petition to terminate Gentry’s 

participation in the drug court program because Gentry had failed to complete 

ten hours of community service imposed on February 8, 2016, as a sanction for 

prior violations of drug court rules; she had failed to report for a casemanagement appointment on February 9, 2016; and she had failed to appear for 

court on February 22, 2016. The trial court terminated Gentry’s participation 

in the drug court program on November 29, 2017. 

[5] On December 6, the trial court accepted Gentry’s guilty plea, found her guilty 

as charged, and entered judgment of conviction accordingly. During the 

sentencing hearing, the trial court identified mitigating and aggravating 

circumstances and sentenced Gentry to the advisory sentences for all three 

convictions, which included six years for dealing in a narcotic drug, as a Level 4 

felony, and three years each for the two counts of dealing in cocaine, as Level 5 

felonies, to be served concurrently. This appeal ensued. 

Discussion and Decision

[6] Gentry contends that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offenses and her character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “[t]he 

Court may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-21 | April 17, 2018 Page 4 of 7

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.” The 

Indiana Supreme Court has recently explained that: 

The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to 

leaven the outliers . . . but not achieve a perceived “correct” 

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

2008). Defendant has the burden to persuade us that the 

sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Anglemyer v. 

State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind.), as amended (July 10, 2007), 

decision clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).

Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original). 

[7] Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate 

sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court’s judgment “should 

receive considerable deference.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. Whether we 

regard a sentence as inappropriate at the end of the day turns on “our sense of 

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. 

The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather 

whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 

268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] unless 

overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the 

offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the 

defendant’s character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples 

of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-21 | April 17, 2018 Page 5 of 7

[8] The sentencing range for a Level 4 felony is two years to twelve years, with an 

advisory sentence of six years. Ind. Code § 35-40-2-5.5 (2018). And the 

sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one year to six years, with an advisory 

sentence of three years. I.C. § 35-50-2-6. Here, the trial court identified as 

mitigating factors the fact that Gentry had accepted responsibility and that she 

had expressed remorse. And the trial court identified the following aggravating 

factors: Gentry’s criminal history, which includes two juvenile delinquency 

adjudications and seven misdemeanor convictions as an adult; that she had had 

her probation revoked three times; that she had had her suspended sentence 

revoked once; that she has a history of failed attempts at rehabilitation; and that 

she had absconded from drug court for over twenty months. Accordingly, the 

trial court sentenced Gentry to an aggregate term of six years with the 

Department of Correction. 

[9] Gentry maintains that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offenses because “there is nothing aggravating about the offense facts.” 

Appellant’s Br. at 11. She further asserts that her sentence should be revised 

because the crimes were “caused by substance[-]abuse issues,” Id. at 11. First, 

to Gentry’s point that the offenses were typical of drug-dealing offenses, the 

trial court apparently agreed and imposed the advisory sentences. Second, 

officers found a total of 7.2 grams of cocaine, five clear, plastic baggies, a digital 

scale that field tested positive for cocaine, and $1,447 when they arrested 

Gentry. Based on the amount of cocaine that Gentry was bringing into the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-21 | April 17, 2018 Page 6 of 7

community, we cannot say that Gentry’s six-year sentence for three felony 

convictions is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses. 

[10] Gentry further asserts that her sentence is inappropriate in light of her character. 

She contends that her drug addiction is a “deep-seated medical condition”; that 

“addiction is something that cannot be cured through incarceration”; and that, 

“What she does not need is a prolonged prison sentence.” Id. Gentry also 

contends that her sentence in inappropriate in light of her character because a 

review of her criminal history reveals that most of her convictions are driving 

offenses. Appellant’s Br. at 11. Be that as it may, Gentry’s poor character is 

demonstrated by the fact that she had her probation revoked three times and a 

suspended sentence revoked once, and she absconded from the drug court 

program for over twenty months. Further, Gentry admits to a history of 

substance abuse, which she has been unable to overcome.1 And, as the State 

notes, Gentry is not just a user, but she is “an active dealer.” Appellee’s Br. at 

10. We cannot say that Gentry’s sentence is inappropriate in light of her 

character. Accordingly, we affirm her sentence. 

[11] Affirmed.

 

1

 Gentry contends that “[h]ard statistics tell[] us that this dependency should not be considered an 

aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 11. She further contends that her 

criminal history should not be treated as an aggravating factor. To the extent that Gentry contends that the 

trial court abused its discretion when it considered those two factors as aggravating circumstances, Gentry 

has not made a cogent argument on appeal. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-21 | April 17, 2018 Page 7 of 7

Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.