Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2351 | May 20, 2019 Page 1 of 7

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.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Brooke Smith

Bradley Keffer

Keffer Barnhart LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Tiffany A. McCoy

Angela Sanchez

Deputy Attorneys General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Denise M. Lechner,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

May 20, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2351

Appeal from the Vanderburgh 

Circuit Court

The Honorable David D. Kiely, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

82C01-1509-F2-5907

Mathias, Judge.

[1] Denise Lechner (“Lechner”) pleaded guilty in Vanderburgh Circuit Court to 

Level 2 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine and was 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2351 | May 20, 2019 Page 2 of 7

sentenced to eighteen years of incarceration. Lechner appeals and argues that 

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

character. 

[2] We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[3] At some point prior to September 23, 2015, Lechner, Thomas Biggs (“Biggs”), 

and David Tapia (“Tapia”) agreed to have methamphetamine shipped to 

Biggs’s home; Tapia and Lechner then planned to deliver the 

methamphetamine to Illinois. Biggs was to receive a portion of the 

methamphetamine in consideration for the use of his home. 

[4] On September 23, 2015, a United States Marshall apprehended Lechner at 

Biggs’s home on outstanding warrants for dealing in methamphetamine and 

felony theft. When the Marshall asked if Lechner had anything illegal on her 

person, Lechner produced a small amount of methamphetamine. She also told 

the Marshall that she was at Biggs’s home to pick up a package containing 

approximately five ounces (roughly 141.75 grams) of methamphetamine. While 

the Marshall spoke with Lechner, a package arrived at the house addressed to 

Veronica Chase, an alias used by Lechner. Inside the package was a lawn 

ornament. Inside the ornament was a package of a crystalline substance that 

tested positive as methamphetamine. The package was wrapped in black 

electrical tape, and a field test of the substance indicated that it weighed 358 

grams, significantly more than five ounces. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2351 | May 20, 2019 Page 3 of 7

[5] Lechner was later interviewed by Vanderburgh County Sheriff’s Department 

Deputy James Budde (“Deputy Budde”). Lechner told Deputy Budde that she 

was supposed to retrieve the package from Biggs’s home and transport it to a 

location in southern Illinois. In exchange for the use of his home, Biggs was to 

be given three grams of methamphetamine. She also stated that this was the 

third time she had picked up a package containing methamphetamine from 

Biggs’s home. 

[6] On September 28, 2015, the State charged Lechner with Level 2 felony 

conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine in an amount of at least ten 

grams. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(a)(2), (e)(1); Ind. Code § 35-41-5-2. On 

March 2, 2016, Lechner entered into an agreement with the State to plead 

guilty to Level 2 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine. On 

April 6, 2016, Lechner filed a motion requesting to be released from jail so that 

she could attend her stepfather’s funeral the following day. The trial court 

granted this request on the condition that Lechner wear a GPS monitor to track 

her location. Instead of returning to jail after the funeral, Lechner cut the GPS 

monitor off and fled. She was apprehended eleven days later, and her bond was 

revoked. The State also moved to withdraw its earlier plea agreement, which 

the trial court granted. 

[7] On October 20, 2016, Lechner’s counsel informed the trial court that the State 

had offered to dismiss charges in two other cases pending against Lechner if she 

agreed to an “open” plea of guilty in two other cases, including the present one. 

Lechner then pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Level 2 felony dealing in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2351 | May 20, 2019 Page 4 of 7

methamphetamine in the present case. At a sentencing hearing held on

November 11, 2016, the trial court accepted Lechner’s plea and sentenced her

to eighteen years of incarceration. Lechner filed a petition for permission to file 

a belated notice of appeal on September 4, 2018, which the trial court granted 

on September 19, 2018. Lechner then filed her notice of appeal on September 

28, 2018, and this appeal ensued. 

Discussion and Decision

[8] Lechner contends that her sentence of eighteen years is inappropriate in light of 

the nature of her offense and her character. Even if a trial court acts within its 

statutory discretion in imposing a sentence, Article 7, Sections 4 and 6 of the 

Indiana Constitution authorize independent appellate review and revision of a 

sentence imposed by the trial court. Trainor v. State, 950 N.E.2d 352, 355 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied (citing Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind.

2007)). This authority is implemented through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), 

which provides that the court on appeal “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.”

[9] Although we may revise a sentence on appeal, we still exercise deference to a 

trial court’s sentencing decision, as Appellate Rule 7(B) requires us to give “due 

consideration” to that decision, and because we understand and recognize the 

unique perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions. Trainor, 950 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2351 | May 20, 2019 Page 5 of 7

N.E.2d at 355 (citing Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d 858, 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2007)). The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to “leaven 

the outliers” and identify guiding principles for trial courts and those charged 

with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve what we 

perceive to be a “correct” result in each case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 

1225 (Ind. 2008).

[10] Under Appellate Rule 7(B), the appropriate question is not whether we believe 

another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the 

sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 

340, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). When we review the appropriateness of a 

sentence, we consider “the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the 

crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light 

in a given case.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224. The defendant bears the burden 

to persuade us that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. 

Shell v. State, 927 N.E.2d 413, 422 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Anglemyer, 868 

N.E.2d at 494). 

[11] In the present case, Lechner was convicted of a Level 2 felony, and the 

sentencing range for a Level 2 felony is ten to thirty years, with the advisory 

being seventeen and one-half years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5. Lechner was 

sentenced to eighteen years—only six months more than the advisory. Thus, 

the burden she bears is higher than if she had been given a more severe 

sentence. Cf. Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011)

(noting that the advisory sentence is the starting point our General Assembly 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2351 | May 20, 2019 Page 6 of 7

has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed and that a 

defendant therefore bears a particularly heavy burden in persuading us that an 

advisory sentence is inappropriate), trans. denied. 

[12] With regard to the nature of the offense, Lechner argues that the factual basis 

supporting her plea “does not establish any facts beyond what are typically 

expected or required for the type of offense.” Appellants Br. at 8; see also

Anderson v. State, 989 N.E.2d 823, 827 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (noting that when 

considering the nature of the offense, a court compares the defendant’s actions 

with the required showing to sustain a conviction under the charged offense), 

trans. denied. This, however, assumes that we are only permitted to look to the 

facts established in the factual basis when considering the appropriateness of a

sentence. Lechner, however, provides no authority supporting this assumption. 

Here, Lechner admitted to the investigating officers that she had transported 

methamphetamine to Illinois twice before. She also admitted that the amount 

of methamphetamine in the package was supposed to be five ounces, 

significantly more than the ten grams required to elevate the crime to a Level 2 

felony. And even if we were to agree with Lechner that we may only consider 

the factual basis, it still shows that she conspired to deliver large amounts of 

methamphetamine and transport it to Illinois. See Tr. p. 29. 

[13] More importantly, Lechner’s character, as evidenced by her lengthy criminal 

history, is by itself sufficient to support the trial court’s sentencing decision. 

Although Lechner emphasizes that she spent a nine-year period drug free and 

without committing any additional criminal offenses, we are unable to overlook 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2351 | May 20, 2019 Page 7 of 7

that she has fourteen prior felony convictions and nine prior misdemeanor 

convictions. And many of these prior convictions were for possession of 

methamphetamine and other controlled substances. Lechner has been charged 

with over fifty crimes in three states. Lechner has also previously violated the 

terms of her work release and probation. And in the present case, when the trial 

court showed lenience toward Lechner by permitting her to attend her 

stepfather’s funeral, she took off her GPS monitor and escaped. Suffice it to say 

that none of this reflects well on Lechner’s character. 

[14] Given the nature of Lechner’s offense and her character, as reflected in her 

continued failure to abide by the law, we are unable to conclude that she has 

met her burden of showing that her eighteen-year sentence is inappropriate. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

[15] Affirmed. 

Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.