Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1409-CR-423| March 31, 2015 Page 1 of 6

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 A. Thoma

Leonard, Hammond, Thoma & Terrill

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Angela N. Sanchez

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Amanda R. Lee,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

March 31, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

02A05-1409-CR-423

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

The Honorable Frances C. Gull, 

Judge 

Cause No. 02D04-1403-FB-65

Bailey, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Amanda R. Lee (“Lee”) appeals the aggregate twelve-year sentence imposed 

following her plea of guilty to Dealing in Methamphetamine, as a Class B 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1409-CR-423| March 31, 2015 Page 2 of 6

felony,1 Maintaining a Common Nuisance2 and Dumping Controlled Substance 

Waste, Class D felonies,3 and Possession of Paraphernalia, as a Class A 

misdemeanor.4 She presents the sole issue of whether her sentence is 

inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 14, 2014, without the benefit of a plea agreement, Lee pled guilty to 

Dealing in Methamphetamine, Maintaining a Common Nuisance, Dumping 

Controlled Substance Waste, and Possession of Paraphernalia. She was 

allowed to participate in the Allen County Drug Program; successful 

completion would have resulted in dismissal of the charges.

[3] However, on July 21, 2014, the trial court revoked Lee’s participation in the 

alternative program. By that time, Lee had been evicted from Hope House, 

where she had been living. She had failed to appear at a drug court compliance 

hearing, she had twice tested positive for methamphetamine, and she had been 

arrested on a new methamphetamine charge.

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1. This statute has been revised, effective July 1, 2014, to provide that Dealing in 

Methamphetamine is now a Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, or Level 5 felony. We refer to the version of the 

statute in effect at the time of Lee’s offense.

2

I.C. § 35-48-4-13. The offense is now a Level 6 felony.

3

I.C. § 35-48-4-4.1. The offense is now a Level 6 felony.

4

I.C. § 35-48-4-8.3.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1409-CR-423| March 31, 2015 Page 3 of 6

[4] On August 27, 2014, the trial court sentenced Lee to twelve years for Dealing in 

Methamphetamine, two years each for Maintaining a Common Nuisance and 

Dumping Controlled Substance Waste, and one year for Possession of 

Paraphernalia. All sentences were to be served concurrently. This appeal 

ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Upon conviction of a Class B felony, Lee was subject to a sentence of between 

six years and twenty years, with ten years as the advisory term. I.C. § 35-50-2-

5.5 Upon conviction of a Class D felony, Lee was subject to a sentence of 

between six months and three years, with one and one-half years as the 

advisory term. I.C. § 35-50-2-7.6 Upon conviction of a Class A misdemeanor, 

Lee was subject to a sentence of up to one year. I.C. § 35-50-3-2. When 

imposing the aggregate twelve-year sentence, the trial court found Lee’s guilty 

plea to be mitigating. As aggravators, the trial court recognized Lee’s criminal 

history and failure to benefit from prior rehabilitative measures. 

[6] The authority granted to this Court by Article 7, § 6 of the Indiana Constitution 

permitting appellate review and revision of criminal sentences is implemented 

through Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides: “The Court may revise a 

 

5 This statutory provision was modified, effective July 1, 2014, to include the penalty for Level 3 felonies.

6 This statutory provision was modified, effective July 1, 2014, to include the penalty for Level 6 felonies.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1409-CR-423| March 31, 2015 Page 4 of 6

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 performing our review, we 

assess “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.” 

Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). The principal role of such 

review is to attempt to leaven the outliers. Id. at 1225. A defendant ‘“must 

persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met th[e] 

inappropriateness standard of review.”’ Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 

(Ind. 2007) (quoting Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)). 

[7] As to the nature of Lee’s offenses, she engaged in the manufacture of 

methamphetamine; the manufacture took place in a rented residence 

maintained by Lee; Lee disposed of methamphetamine waste; and she 

possessed drug paraphernalia.

[8] Lee admitted to her guilt of the foregoing offenses, and this admission reflects 

favorably upon her character. See Cotto v. State, 829 N.E.2d 520, 526 (Ind. 

2005). Although Lee claims to be bi-polar, she reported to the pre-sentence 

investigator that she was not taking medication for a mental health disorder. 

[9] By the age of twenty-five, Lee had already compiled a substantial criminal 

history. She also has a significant history of failure to benefit from 

rehabilitative efforts short of incarceration.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1409-CR-423| March 31, 2015 Page 5 of 6

[10] Lee had a single juvenile delinquency adjudication, for Possession of 

Marijuana. She violated the terms of her informal adjustment and was placed 

on juvenile probation. As an adult, Lee compiled two prior felony convictions 

and four prior misdemeanor convictions. In 2007, she committed Battery and 

Invasion of Privacy, as Class A misdemeanors. She was placed on 

unsupervised probation, but her sentence was modified and she was ordered to 

serve a sixty-day sentence.

[11] In 2008, she committed Invasion of Privacy as a Class D felony. Her 

suspended sentence was revoked and she was ordered to serve two years on 

home detention. Her home detention placement was revoked, and she was 

committed to the Indiana Department of Correction. Also in 2008, Lee 

committed a second offense of Invasion of Privacy, as a Class D felony. The 

suspended sentence was revoked and she was incarcerated. In 2012, Lee 

committed Domestic Battery, as a Class A misdemeanor. In 2013, Lee was 

convicted of Disorderly Conduct, as a Class B misdemeanor.

[12] Upon Lee’s April 14, 2014 plea, she was initially placed into a drug court 

program. One week later, she missed a scheduled drug screen. On April 23 

and April 25, 2014, Lee tested positive for methamphetamine. She was 

unsuccessfully discharged from Hope House due to non-compliance with 

program rules. She failed to appear in court on June 16, 2014 and was arrested. 

On July 11, 2014, Lee was arrested on a new Dealing in Methamphetamine 

charge. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1409-CR-423| March 31, 2015 Page 6 of 6

Having reviewed the matter, we conclude that the trial court did not 

impose an inappropriate sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B), and the sentence 

does not warrant appellate revision. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the 

sentence imposed by the trial court.

[13] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Barnes, J., concur.