Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1604-CR-848 | November 22, 2016 Page 1 of 9

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

Andrew B. Arnett

Indianapolis,Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Justin F. Roebel

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis,Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Tonya R. Crump,

Appellant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee.

November 22, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

73A01-1604-CR-848

Appeal from the Shelby Circuit

Court

The Honorable Charles D.

O’Connor, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

73C01-1310-FA-29

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1604-CR-848 | November 22, 2016 Page 2 of 9

[1] Tonya R. Crump appeals her sentence for dealing in methamphetamine as a

class B felony. Crump raises one issue which we restate as whether her sentence

is inappropriate based on the nature of the offense and the character of 

the offender. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On or about August 28, 2013, Crump knowingly or intentionally delivered

methamphetamine to another. On October 29, 2013, the State charged Crump

with dealing methamphetamine as a class A felony. The State’s information

alleged that Crump delivered methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of school

property, a public park, a family housing complex, and/or a youth program

center. The State later filed an amended information, with the approval of the

court, which alleged that Crump delivered methamphetamine in an amount

weighing three grams or more as a class A felony.

[3] On March 15, 2016, the court held a guilty plea and sentencing hearing at

which Crump, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled guilty to dealing in

methamphetamine as a class B felony. The plea agreement provided that in

exchange for her plea of guilty to dealing in methamphetamine as a class B

felony, the State would dismiss any remaining counts, and that sentencing

would be open to the court. The plea agreement also provided that Crump

waived any right to appellate review of her sentence. The court asked Crump if

she understood that she had the right to appeal her sentence, and she responded

affirmatively. The prosecutor stated that, if the matter had proceeded to trial,

the State would have presented testimony that, as part of a controlled buy,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1604-CR-848 | November 22, 2016 Page 3 of 9

Crump delivered methamphetamine to a confidential informant in exchange for

$350 and that the informant was searched and found in possession of

methamphetamine in the amount of 3.7 grams. When asked if she admitted

and agreed she acted as described by the prosecutor, Crump responded

affirmatively. The court found there was a factual basis for the plea.

[4] The court then moved to sentencing. Crump testified that she had been caring

for her fiancé’s father for eight months while his wife was at work and made

sure he had his medicine and he ate, and she ran errands as needed, and she

helped him move from room to room. She testified that she attended meetings

at her church, her life had completely changed in the last two and one-half to

three years, she was completely drug free, she had a relationship with her

mother and children, she was engaged to a man that does not have any kind of

drug in his life, and that she also helped care for her niece who has brain

injuries. She further testified that she had been recently hospitalized for seven

days, she is completely insulin dependent, she gives herself insulin injections

five times a day, she was waiting on injections for her knees and possible

surgery, and that she was scheduled for a required hysterectomy.

[5] Crump also stated that she previously completed house arrest for ninety days

without any violations, she successfully completed her sentences and probation

in connection with her prior convictions, she successfully completed the MRT

Program, she passed all her drug screens, she took advantage of every

opportunity while in the Indiana Department of Correction (the “DOC”), and

that she became Microsoft certified. When asked if she recalled telling the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1604-CR-848 | November 22, 2016 Page 4 of 9

detective “that this saved [her] life,” Crump responded affirmatively, and she

stated that “[i]t got me out of a situation with a man and his family that I didn’t

need to be in and I wasn’t sure how to break away from it” and “[t]his

completely broke me away from a lot of things but it completely changed my

life and changed the direction of my life.” Transcript at 22. She testified that

her boyfriend at the time was working for the confidential informant’s brother,

that instead of being paid in cash he would be paid in drugs, that on numerous

occasions they would obtain money by returning the drugs for money, and that

most of the time she was giving the drugs back because she was female and her

former boyfriend wanted a female to hand the, back. On cross-examination,

when asked if she admitted that she was out on bond for carrying a handgun

and possession of a controlled substance and chose to continue to deal in

methamphetamine, Crump responded affirmatively.

[6] Crump’s counsel asked the court to consider commitment to community

corrections and argued that “she’s really someone that could uh benefit the

community by maintaining her uh status of not being in the [DOC].” Id. at 30.

The prosecutor argued that an appropriate sentence was “fifteen years executed

with three suspended.” Id. at 31.

[7] In its sentencing order, the court found that this is Crump’s second conviction

for dealing to be an aggravating factor and assigned the factor significant

weight, that Crump committed the offense while out on bond to be an

aggravating factor and assigned the factor significant weight as it demonstrates

disdain for the State’s ability to bring her to justice, and that she is remorseful
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1604-CR-848 | November 22, 2016 Page 5 of 9

for her actions and has significant health issues and assigned these factors

minimal weight. The court found that the aggravating factors outweighed the

mitigating factors and support an enhanced sentence and sentenced Crump to

eleven years with eight years executed and three years suspended to probation.

The court ordered that the executed term be served as seven years in the DOC

and one year as a direct commitment to home detention.

Discussion

[8] The issue is whether Crump’s sentence is inappropriate based on the nature of

the offense and her character. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “may

revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial

court’s decision, [we find] that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the

nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Under this rule, the

burden is on the defendant to persuade the appellate court that his or her

sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

Relief is available if, after due consideration of the trial court’s sentencing

decision, this Court finds that in its independent judgment, the sentence is

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the

offender. See Hines v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1216, 1225 (Ind. 2015). Sentencing is

principally a discretionary function in which the trial court’s judgment should

receive considerable deference. Id. (citation omitted). 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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1604-CR-848 | November 22, 2016 Page 6 of 9

others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case. Id. (citation

omitted).

[9] Crump contends her sentence is inappropriate and that the trial court failed to

recognize several mitigating factors. She argues that the court failed to

recognize that she would respond affirmatively to probation or short-term

imprisonment, that the crime was a result of circumstances unlikely to recur,

and that imprisonment would result in undue hardship to her fiancé’s father

and her niece.

[10] The State maintains that Crump, in her plea agreement, waived her right to

challenge her sentence on appeal and that her sentence is not inappropriate. It

argues that Crump’s offense is particularly outrageous because it is her second

dealing conviction and she committed the crime while released on bond for

charges of carrying a handgun and possession of a controlled substance. The

State also argues that Crump has a significant criminal history and a long

history of substance abuse including cocaine and methamphetamine.

[11] Even assuming that Crump did not waive this issue, we cannot say that Crump

has established that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the

offense and her character. We note that Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5 provides that a

person who commits a class B felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of

between six and twenty years, with the advisory sentence being ten years. The

trial court sentenced Crump to eleven years with eight years executed, and it
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1604-CR-848 | November 22, 2016 Page 7 of 9

ordered that one year of the executed term be served as a direct commitment to

home detention.

[12] With respect to the nature of the offense, the record reveals that in August 2013

Crump knowingly or intentionally delivered methamphetamine to another.

With respect to the character of the offender, the presentence investigation

report (“PSI”) indicates that Crump’s criminal history consists of conspiracy to

traffic with an inmate as a class A misdemeanor in 1993, dealing in marijuana

as a class D felony in 2009, and possession of marijuana as a class D felony and

“Carrying Handgun w/o License-Prior/Prior Felony w/in 15 Yrs/School 

Prop, School Bus” as a class C felony in 2013 under cause number 73D01-1302-

FC-12 (“Cause No. 12”). Appellant’s Appendix, Volume III, at 6. The PSI

further states that, at the time Crump committed the present offense, she was out

on bond under Cause No. 12, that in the past she was placed on probation under

two cases and successfully completed those supervisions, and that she has

successfully completed three separate terms of home detention, the most recent

in 2014. The PSI states that Crump cares for her boyfriend’s father who suffers

from dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and other health issues Monday through

Friday from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. while his wife is at work, and that Crump testified

that she had been caring for her fiancé’s father for eight months and that she

also helps care for her niece who has brain injuries.

[13] With respect to her health, the PSI states Crump is diabetic and must give

herself insulin shots, has neuropathy in her feet and has prescriptions, she noted

she has vision trouble, she has a prescription for her stomach, she has had
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1604-CR-848 | November 22, 2016 Page 8 of 9

surgery on her back three times, and that she has had surgery on her left elbow,

right ankle, and left foot. With respect to substance abuse, the PSI states that

Crump has a history of drug use that began when she was in high school,

marijuana is her drug of choice and she reported last using in October 2013, 

and that she began using cocaine weekly in 1997 but reported it has been years

since she last used cocaine. The PSI further states she began using

methamphetamine in 2001/2002, she used methamphetamine on and off for

years, prior to her arrest in 2013 she estimated she was using methamphetamine

every other weekend, she last used methamphetamine in October 2013, she

began experimenting with pills beginning at the age of fifteen and noted she last

used pills three years ago, and that she has also used spice, bath salts, LSD, and

mushrooms. The PSI notes that, according to Crump, she was a patient of the

Dunn Center in 2006/2007 but stopped going and then was a patient again in

2009/2010 and successfully completed the program. The PSI further notes that

Crump’s overall risk assessment score using the Indiana risk assessment system

places her in the moderate risk to reoffend category.

[14] After due consideration, we conclude that Crump has not met her burden of

establishing that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the

offense and her character.1

1 To the extent Crump argues the court abused its discretion in sentencing her for failure to recognize certain

mitigating circumstances, we need not address this issue because we find that her sentence is not

inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). See Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504, 507 (Ind. 2007)

(holding that, in the absence of a proper sentencing order, Indiana appellate courts may either remand for

resentencing or exercise their authority to review the sentence pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)), reh’g
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1604-CR-848 | November 22, 2016 Page 9 of 9

Conclusion

[15] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Crump’s conviction and sentence for

dealing in methamphetamine as a class B felony.

[16] Affirmed.

Mathias, J., concurs.

Robb, J., concurs in result without opinion.

denied; Chappell v. State, 966 N.E.2d 124, 134 n.10 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (noting that any error in failing to

consider a mitigating factor is harmless if the sentence is not inappropriate), trans. denied.