Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2110 | January 16, 2020 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

Cara Schaefer Wieneke

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Myriam Serrano

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Adrienne Rae Pritchard,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

January 16, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-2110

Appeal from the Vermillion Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Jill D. Wesch, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

83C01-1804-F5-12

83C01-1903-F4-3

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2110 | January 16, 2020 Page 2 of 6

Statement of the Case

[1] Adrienne Ray Pritchard appeals her sentence after she pleaded guilty to 

burglary, as a Level 4 felony. Pritchard raises one issue for our review, namely, 

whether her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and 

her character.

[2] We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In August 2018, Pritchard pleaded guilty to burglary, as a Level 5 felony, in 

Cause Number 83C01-1804-F5-12 (“F5-12”). Pursuant to that guilty plea, the 

trial court sentenced her to three years suspended to probation. 

[4] On March 13, 2019, Pritchard entered Skyler McIntyre’s house through a 

window while McIntyre was sleeping. Pritchard then took “multiple items” 

from McIntyre’s house, including McIntyre’s cell phone. Tr. Vol. II at 7. 

McIntyre confronted Pritchard, but Pritchard denied having taken the items. 

McIntyre later contacted Pritchard’s girlfriend, who was able to locate 

McIntyre’s cell phone and return it to her. 

[5] The State charged Pritchard with burglary, as a Level 4 felony; residential entry, 

a Level 6 felony; theft, as a Class A misdemeanor; and criminal mischief, as a 

Class B misdemeanor, in Cause Number 83C01-1903-F4-3 (“F4-3”). In 

addition, the State filed a petition to revoke Pritchard’s probation in F5-12. 

Thereafter, Pritchard entered into a plea agreement with the State in which she 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2110 | January 16, 2020 Page 3 of 6

agreed to plead guilty to burglary, as a Level 4 felony, in F4-3, and to admit to 

the probation violation in F5-12. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the 

remaining charges in F4-3. The court accepted Pritchard’s guilty plea and

entered judgment of conviction accordingly. Following a hearing, the court 

revoked Pritchard’s placement on probation in F4-12 and ordered her to serve

the balance of her previously suspended sentence. The court also sentenced her 

to six years, with three years executed in the Department of Correction and 

three years on home detention in F4-3, which sentence was to be served 

consecutive to her sentence in F5-12. This appeal ensued. 

Discussion and Decision

[6] Pritchard contends that her six-year sentence in F4-3 is inappropriate in light of 

the nature of the offense and her character.1 Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B)

provides that “[t]he 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.” This court has recently held that “[t]he advisory sentence is the 

starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the 

crime committed.” Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). 

And 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” 

1

 On appeal, Pritchard does not challenge her sentence in F5-12.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2110 | January 16, 2020 Page 4 of 6

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 facts 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). 

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

advisory sentence of six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5 (2019). Here, 

Pritchard’s plea agreement left sentencing open to the discretion of the trial 

court, and the court sentenced her to the advisory sentence of six years, with 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2110 | January 16, 2020 Page 5 of 6

three years executed in the Department of Correction and three years to be 

served on home detention. 

[9] On appeal, Prichard contends that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offense because the offense was “minor,” she accepted 

responsibility, and McIntyre recovered her property. Appellant’s Br. at 9. And 

Prichard contends that her sentence is inappropriate in light of her character 

because her criminal history only consists of offenses that were “minor and not 

violent in nature,” and because she “has struggled with a serious drug 

addiction” and “serious mental health disorders.” Id. at 9. 

[10] However, Prichard has not met her burden on appeal to demonstrate that her

sentence is inappropriate. With respect to the nature of the offense, Pritchard 

broke into McIntyre’s home through a window while McIntyre was asleep and 

stole “multiple items,” including a cell phone. Tr. Vol. II at 7. Further, while 

McIntyre received her property back, it was not because Pritchard returned the 

items. Rather, Pritchard’s girlfriend, who was a friend of McIntyre, returned 

the phone. Pritchard has not presented compelling evidence portraying the

nature of the offenses in a positive light. See Stephenson, 29 N.E.2d at 122. 

[11] As to her character, Pritchard is only twenty-three years old and already has a 

criminal history that spans two states and includes two prior felony convictions, 

including a prior conviction for burglary. Further, Pritchard has been given 

opportunities to avoid incarceration in the past through alternative sentences in 

both Indiana and Illinois, but she continues to commit crimes. Indeed, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2110 | January 16, 2020 Page 6 of 6

Pritchard was on probation for two prior offenses when she committed the 

instant offense. 

[12] Still, Pritchard asserts that her sentence is inappropriate because the instant 

offense constituted a violation of her probation in F5-12, which violation 

resulted in the court revoking her probation and imposing the balance of her 

previously suspended sentence. In essence, Pritchard contends that her six-year 

sentence for the instant offense is inappropriate because she already has to serve 

“several years in prison as a result of the probation violation.” Appellant’s Br. 

at 9. Pritchard’s argument on this point is not well taken. We acknowledge 

that Pritchard has been ordered to serve the balance of her previously 

suspended sentence in a prior case because she violated the terms of her 

probation. But we cannot say that her sentence for the instance offense is 

inappropriate simply because the offense triggered the revocation of her 

probation in another case. Rather, as discussed above, Pritchard has a criminal 

history that reflects poorly on her character. 

[13] We conclude that Pritchard’s six-year advisory sentence, with three years 

executed in the Department of Correction and three years on home detention, is

not inappropriate. We therefore affirm Pritchard’s sentence. 

[14] Affirmed.

Vaidik, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.