Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-809 | September 30, 2019 Page 1 of 8

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

R. Patrick Magrath

Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP

Madison, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Sierra A. Murray

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jesslyn Powell,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

September 30, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-809

Appeal from the Jefferson Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Steven M. Fleece, 

Senior Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

39C01-1808-F3-866

Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-809 | September 30, 2019 Page 2 of 8

Case Summary

[1] Jesslyn Powell appeals her nine-year sentence imposed by the trial court 

following her guilty plea to level 3 felony conspiracy to deal methamphetamine. 

She argues that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense 

and her character. Finding that Powell has not met her burden of 

demonstrating that her sentence is inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On August 17, 2018, Powell facilitated a purchase of a half-ounce of 

methamphetamine between her co-conspirator, Robert Taylor, and her 

distributor in Louisville, Kentucky. Taylor desired to purchase the half-ounce,

and Powell knew that her distributor in Louisville dealt in large amounts of 

methamphetamine. Powell and Taylor drove to Louisville and made the 

purchase. On their way back from Louisville, Taylor immediately sold a 

quarter of an ounce to a person in Clark County, Indiana. Afterwards, Powell 

and Taylor returned to a home where Taylor had been staying in Jefferson 

County. According to the probable cause affidavit, the Madison Police 

Department executed a search warrant at the home regarding a

methamphetamine investigation. Powell, Taylor, and another female were 

inside. During the search of the home, officers found 9.2 grams of

methamphetamine, multiple bags used to package methamphetamine for sale, 

digital scales, 59 Alprazolam pills, drug paraphernalia, and a plastic tub that 

contained crystalline pieces that tested positive for methamphetamine. Powell 

was subsequently arrested, and a search of her purse revealed a set of digital 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-809 | September 30, 2019 Page 3 of 8

scales and clear baggies containing a crystalline substance. Appellant’s App. 

Vol. 2 at 15-16.

[3] The State charged Powell with level 3 felony dealing in methamphetamine, 

level 3 felony conspiracy to deal methamphetamine, level 5 felony possession of 

methamphetamine, class A misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, 

and class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. In September 2018, 

pursuant to a written plea agreement, Powell pled guilty to the conspiracy 

charge, and the State agreed to drop the other charges. The plea agreement left 

sentencing to the trial court’s discretion. Pursuant to the plea agreement, 

Powell waived her right to challenge her sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 

7(B). Id. at 46. However, during the guilty plea hearing, the trial court 

informed Powell, that she could appeal her sentence, without any objections 

from either party’s counsel.1 Powell also signed an addendum to the plea 

agreement in which she agreed to work as a confidential informant for the 

Indiana State Police in exchange for her release from jail. Powell failed to

abide by the terms of the addendum. During sentencing, the trial court found

no compelling aggravating or mitigating circumstances but did note Powell’s 

past convictions for possession of cocaine, marijuana, and narcotic drugs. The 

trial court sentenced Powell to nine years executed. This appeal ensued. 

1 Consequently, the waiver provision in the plea agreement was a nullity. See Ricci v. State, 894 N.E.2d 1089, 

1093-94 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (finding that Ricci did not surrender right to appeal his sentence 

notwithstanding waiver provision in plea agreement when trial court clearly stated at plea hearing, without 

any objection from either party’s counsel, that Ricci could appeal his sentence), trans. denied. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-809 | September 30, 2019 Page 4 of 8

Discussion and Decision

[4] Powell requests that we reduce her sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 

7(B), which 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.” “Sentence review under Appellate Rule 7(B) is very deferential to 

the trial court.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). “Such 

deference should prevail 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). The principal role of appellate review is to 

attempt to “leaven the outliers[.]” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 

2008). “We do not look to determine if the sentence was appropriate; instead 

we look to make sure the sentence was not inappropriate.” Conley, 972 N.E.2d 

at 876. 

[5] Regarding the nature of the offense, “the advisory sentence is the starting point 

the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime 

committed.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on 

reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218. The sentencing range for a level 3 felony is between three 

and sixteen years, with an advisory sentence of nine years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-

5(b). As stated above, the trial court imposed a sentence of nine years. “[T]he 

defendant bears a particularly heavy burden in persuading us that [her] sentence 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-809 | September 30, 2019 Page 5 of 8

is inappropriate when the trial court imposes the advisory sentence.” Fernbach 

v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans denied. 

[6] When reviewing the nature of the offense, this Court considers the “details and 

circumstances surrounding the offense and the defendant’s participation 

therein.” Morris v. State, 114 N.E.3d 531, 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied

(2019). Powell first contends that the nature of the offense did not warrant the 

sentence she received because her involvement in the crime was “limited to 

assisting a local dealer in arranging a transaction with a drug distributor.” 

Appellant’s Br. at 10. Powell downplays the seriousness of her involvement in 

the offense. Here, Powell knew that her distributor in Kentucky dealt in large 

quantities of methamphetamine. Powell not only facilitated the drug 

transaction but also participated in the purchase of the half an ounce of 

methamphetamine. She also had knowledge that Taylor immediately sold a 

quarter of an ounce of methamphetamine in Indiana. Powell was at a house 

where Taylor was staying when police officers executed a search warrant and 

found 9.2 grams of methamphetamine, narcotics, digital scales and baggies 

used to package and sell methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and crystalline 

pieces that tested positive for methamphetamine. After Powell was arrested, a 

search of her purse revealed digital scales and baggies containing crystalline 

substances, which indicates an active role in the deadly methamphetamine 

trade. 

[7] Powell also claims that her offense “did not involve any harm or intent to cause 

harm to any other person.” Id. We disagree. As the trial court pointed out 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-809 | September 30, 2019 Page 6 of 8

during sentencing, “you’ve been on the bad guy side in this struggle that we 

have in our society in trying to get rid of [drugs]” and “by helping in the 

distribution of [drugs] you’ve hurt other folks.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 61. Clearly, the 

nature of the offense does not support a reduction of Powell’s sentence.

[8] With respect to Powell’s character, we note that “[t]he character of the offender 

is found in what we learn of the offender’s life and conduct.” Perry v. State, 78 

N.E.3d 1, 13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “The significance of a criminal history in 

assessing a defendant’s character and an appropriate sentence varies based on 

the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current 

offense.” Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). 

Powell’s criminal history includes convictions for illegal consumption of 

alcohol, two convictions for operating a vehicle without a license, operating a 

vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, operating a vehicle with an 

ACE of .15 or more, and possession of marijuana, cocaine, and narcotic drugs. 

She also had her probation revoked for nonreporting. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 

at 58-59.

[9] Powell contends that she took responsibility and pled guilty to the “top count 

she was charged with.” Appellant’s Br. at 10. While Powell did plead guilty, 

she received a significant benefit in doing so. Powell faced almost forty years in 

prison. As a result of the plea agreement, the State dismissed two felony and 

two misdemeanor charges. While we commend Powell for twelve years of 

sobriety, unfortunately, she went back to using and distributing illegal drugs 

and continues to surround herself with others who do the same. In fact, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-809 | September 30, 2019 Page 7 of 8

between Powell’s guilty plea and sentencing hearings, her live-in boyfriend, 

who has an extensive criminal record, was arrested in their home for dealing 

marijuana and possessing hypodermic needles that tested positive for 

methamphetamine. Appellant’s Br. at 12; Tr. Vol. 2 at 53. This belies Powell’s 

purported desire to “avoid people associated with illegal drug activity.” Id.

[10] Powell also emphasizes that she offered to assist law enforcement in controlled 

buys from known drug dealers. Powell signed an addendum to her plea 

agreement which allowed her to be released from jail in exchange for her 

assistance. However, according to Indiana State Police Detective Mark 

Jenkins, communication on setting up drug buys was difficult with Powell, and 

sometimes days would go by before she would respond to him. Tr. Vol. 2 at 44, 

51. Detective Jenkins indicated that after five months, Powell failed to assist 

them with completing drug buys. Powell argues that she “made efforts to set up 

buys but they did not coincide with law enforcement’s timelines.” Appellant’s 

Br. at 12. Powell admitted that she “could have tried hard[er]” but that she 

“would get frustrated ... had no life ... and couldn’t do anything because law 

enforcement wanted her to talk to a dealer every single day.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 25, 

34. Powell had an opportunity to work with law enforcement to eliminate or 

reduce drug dealing in the community. We agree with the State that she made 

the agreement with law enforcement in order to get out of jail and not to help 

with the pervasive drug problem affecting the community. Powell’s behavior 

does not reflect positively on her character.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-809 | September 30, 2019 Page 8 of 8

[11] In sum, Powell has not persuaded us that her sentence is inappropriate in light 

of the nature of the offense or her character. Accordingly, we affirm.

[12] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.