Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2727 | March 20, 2019 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

Patrick Magrath

Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP

Madison, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Ian McLean 

Supervising Deputy Attorney 

General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kathy Hardesty,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

March 20, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2727

Appeal from the Ripley 

Superior Court 

The Honorable Jeffrey L. 

Sharp, Judge 

Trial Court Cause No.

69D01-1804-F6-100

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2727 | March 20, 2019 Page 2 of 6

Statement of the Case

[1] Kathy Hardesty appeals her sentence following her conviction for dealing in 

methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony, and her adjudication as a habitual 

offender pursuant to a guilty plea. Hardesty presents a single issue for our 

review, namely, whether her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of 

the offense and her character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 5, 2018, Indiana State Police Trooper Jordan Craig and other officers 

conducted a knock and talk investigation at Hardesty’s house in Holton. Once 

Trooper Craig and the other officers were inside, they found nine adults, 

including Hardesty, and two small children. After Trooper Craig observed a 

burned marijuana cigarette in plain view, and after one of the adults was found 

to possess methamphetamine after consenting to a search of his person, Trooper 

Craig obtained and executed a search warrant for the residence. In the course 

of that search, officers found: a pipe used to smoke methamphetamine (found 

inside a diaper bag); five syringes (one on a couch, one in a laundry basket, and

three in a backpack); a corner-cut baggie containing methamphetamine;

Hardesty’s wallet, with $1000 in cash; and a ledger listing names and amounts 

owed for methamphetamine sales.

[3] Hardesty agreed to talk to Trooper Craig, and she admitted that the cash found 

in her wallet was payment for a methamphetamine sale. Hardesty also told 

Trooper Craig that she had sold methamphetamine to “numerous people in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2727 | March 20, 2019 Page 3 of 6

Ripley [County] and Jennings County” and that “[s]he was dealing to people 

who dealt.” Tr. at 27. Hardesty stated that she sold approximately one ounce 

of methamphetamine per week.

[4] The State charged Hardesty with dealing in methamphetamine, as a Level 5 

felony; maintaining a common nuisance, a Level 6 felony; possessing 

methamphetamine, as a Level 6 felony; and being a habitual offender. 

Hardesty pleaded guilty to dealing in methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony, 

and to being a habitual offender. In exchange for her plea, the State dismissed 

the other charges. The trial court accepted the guilty plea, which left sentencing 

open to the trial court’s discretion. Following a hearing, the trial court 

sentenced Hardesty to six years for the Level 5 felony enhanced by six years for 

being a habitual offender, for an aggregate term of twelve years executed. This 

appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Hardesty contends that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and her character. 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 explained that:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2727 | March 20, 2019 Page 4 of 6

The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to 

leaven the outliers . . . but not achieve a perceived “correct” 

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, 

868 N.E.2d at 494].

Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original).

[6] 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).

[7] Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-6(b) states that a person convicted of a Level 5

felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term between one and six years, with an 

advisory sentence of three years. Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-8 states in 

relevant part that, where a person has been convicted of a Level 5 felony and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2727 | March 20, 2019 Page 5 of 6

found to be a habitual offender, the court shall sentence her to an additional 

fixed term that is between two years and six years. Here, the trial court 

identified as an aggravating circumstance Hardesty’s criminal history, including 

a 2006 conviction for dealing in methamphetamine, as a Class B felony; 

probation violations in 2009 and 2011; a 2015 conviction for possession of 

methamphetamine, as a Level 6 felony; and “a home detention violation in 

2017.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 89. The trial court also found aggravating: 

the presence of young children in the home; that Hardesty was “a major source 

of methamphetamine to Ripley County”; and her high risk to reoffend. Id. The 

trial court found two mitigating circumstances, namely, Hardesty’s cooperation 

with law enforcement officers and her guilty plea. The trial court found that the 

aggravators outweighed the mitigators and imposed the maximum aggregate 

sentence of twelve years.

[8] Hardesty maintains that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of 

the offense because “there is nothing in the nature of [the] crime that makes it 

above and beyond the nature of offense the legislature proscribed in the 

criminal statute.” Appellant’s Br. at 12. And she maintains that her sentence is 

inappropriate in light of her character because of her “significant work history,” 

her history of addiction, her cooperation with law enforcement, her acceptance 

of responsibility, and her remorse. Id.

[9] We cannot say that Hardesty’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of 

the offense or her character. Regarding the nature of the offense, Hardesty 

admitted that she had sold methamphetamine in the presence of her two very 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2727 | March 20, 2019 Page 6 of 6

young grandchildren. With respect to her character, Hardesty admitted to 

selling methamphetamine for ten years, and this is her third methamphetaminerelated felony conviction since 2006. Hardesty admitted that she had sold

methamphetamine to other dealers, and Trooper Craig testified that Hardesty 

was “the source for a lot of mid-level drug dealers.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 

89. Hardesty has two previous probation violations, and she violated the terms 

of her home detention in 2017. Hardesty’s numerous encounters with law 

enforcement and the courts have done nothing to discourage her from criminal 

conduct. We cannot say that Hardesty’s twelve-year sentence is inappropriate 

in light of the nature of the offense and her character.

[10] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Robb, J., concur.