Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memo randum Decision 0 2 A 0 5

- 1 4 0 9

- C R

- 4 2 3 | M a r c h 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 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.



## A TTORNEY FOR 

## A PPELLANT 

### Mark A. Thoma Leonard, Hammond, Thoma & Terrill Fort Wayne, Indiana 

## A TTORNEY S FOR 

## A PPELLEE 

### 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 M a rch 31, 2015 Court of Appeals Ca se 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, a s a Class BCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memo randum Decision 0 2 A 0 5

- 1 4 0 9

- C R

- 4 2 3 | M a r c h 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 Page 2 of 6



## felony, 1 

## Maintaining a Common Nuisance 2 

## and Dumping Controlled Substance Waste, Class D felonies, 3 

## and Possession of Paraphernalia, a s a Class A misdemeanor. 4 

## She presents the sole issue of whether her sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.



# Facts and Procedural H istory

[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 All en 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 | Memo randum Decision 0 2 A 0 5

- 1 4 0 9

- C R

- 4 2 3 | M a r c h 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 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 Decisi on

[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 tri al 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 Constitut ion 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 L evel 6 felonies.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memo randum Decision 0 2 A 0 5

- 1 4 0 9

- C R

- 4 2 3 | M a r c h 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 Page 4 of 6



## sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court find s 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 fa ctors 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 senten ce 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 methamphet amine; 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 h er char acter. 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 | Memo randum Decision 0 2 A 0 5

- 1 4 0 9

- C R

- 4 2 3 | M a r c h 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 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 convic tions. 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 i n 200 8 , Lee committed a seco nd 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 misdem eanor.

[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 fro m 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 | Memo randum Decision 0 2 A 0 5

- 1 4 0 9

- C R

- 4 2 3 | M a r c h 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 Page 6 of 6



## Having reviewed the matter, we conclude that the tr ial 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.