Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2602 | March 31, 2020 Page 1 of 7

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Russell B. Cate

Cate, Terry & Gookins LLC

Carmel, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Lauren A. Jacobsen

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Lisa J. Lisk,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

March 31, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-2602

Appeal from the Hamilton 

Superior Court

The Honorable David K. Najjar, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

29D05-1808-F6-5945

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2602 | March 31, 2020 Page 2 of 7

[1] Lisa Lisk appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court after she pleaded 

guilty to Level 6 Felony Theft. Lisk argues that the amount of the restitution 

order is not supported by sufficient evidence and that the sentence is 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and her character. Finding no 

error with respect to the restitution order and that the sentence is not 

inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts

[2] On July 17, 2018, Alexis Roach arrived at Pinheads Bowling alley to begin her 

shift for the evening. She brought her purse with her, which held $400 in cash, 

debit and credit cards, a liquor license, a birth certificate, her driver’s license, 

her daughter’s social security card, and the key fob to Roach’s vehicle. Lisk 

was also working at Pinheads, and took Roach’s purse with her when she left 

for the night. Lisk received a ride home from a Lyft driver. When they arrived 

at Lisk’s house, she left Roach’s purse in the backseat of the vehicle. The driver 

contacted Roach the next morning and returned her purse; the only item 

missing was the $400 in cash, which Roach reported as stolen.

[3] On August 23, 2018, the State charged Lisk with theft as a Level 6 felony and 

as a Class A misdemeanor. On August 19, 2019, Lisk entered an open guilty 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2602 | March 31, 2020 Page 3 of 7

plea to Level 6 felony theft; the State dismissed the Class A misdemeanor 

charge.1 

[4] At the October 8, 2019, sentencing hearing, the presentence investigation report 

(PSI) was entered into evidence. The PSI included the probable cause affidavit 

prepared by the investigating officer, which stated that $400 in cash had been 

taken from Roach’s purse. No witnesses testified and the hearing primarily 

consisted of legal arguments made by the attorneys. The State requested that 

$400 in restitution be paid to Roach. Lisk did not contest this amount or object 

to restitution.

[5] At the close of the hearing, the trial court ordered Lisk to pay $400 in restitution 

and sentenced her to two and one-half years imprisonment, with six months to 

be served on community corrections. Lisk now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

I. Restitution

[6] First, Lisk argues that the trial court committed fundamental error regarding the 

restitution order. Generally, a restitution order is within the trial court’s 

discretion and we will reverse only when its decision is clearly against the logic 

and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Sickels v. State, 982 N.E.2d 

1 The charging information alleges that Lisk stole Roach’s purse; it does not refer to specific contents of the 

purse, including the cash. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 12. Taking the purse is also what Lisk admitted to 

doing at the guilty plea hearing. Tr. Vol. II p. 13. At no point did Lisk admit that she took a certain amount 

of money from Roach.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2602 | March 31, 2020 Page 4 of 7

1010, 1013 (Ind. 2013). Where, as here, counsel did not object, the appellant 

must show fundamental error to merit relief on appeal. Morris v. State, 2 N.E.3d 

7, 9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Fundamental error occurs “when the error was a 

blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm is 

substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant fundamental due 

process.” Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670, 678 (Ind. 2013) (internal quotation 

marks omitted).

[7] Indiana Code section 35-50-5-3(a) states that restitution orders must be based 

upon a consideration of evidence regarding the victim’s losses. In other words, 

“[a] restitution order must be supported by sufficient evidence of actual loss 

sustained by the victim of a crime.” Garcia v. State, 47 N.E.3d 1249, 1252 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2015). In Garcia, the only evidence of the amount of the victim’s loss 

supplied by the State at the sentencing hearing was the probable cause affidavit. 

This Court “decline[d] to accept that document as a valid basis for upholding 

the order herein. The State offered no other proof of the amount of [the 

victim’s] loss, [the victim] was not present at the sentencing hearing, and no 

additional evidence or testimony concerning this estimate was presented.” Id.

(also observing that the statement of facts in a probable cause affidavit poses a 

risk of unreliability that the hearsay rule is designed to protect against). This 

Court noted that the State could have met its burden of establishing the 

restitution amount by obtaining an affidavit from the victim (or offering the 

victim’s testimony at the hearing). Id. at 1253. Absent that evidence, the 

restitution order was erroneous.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2602 | March 31, 2020 Page 5 of 7

[8] We find Garcia to be distinguishable from the case before us. Whereas in 

Garcia, the defendant objected to the restitution order and amount, in this case, 

no such objection was made—either to the PSI, the included probable cause 

affidavit, or the restitution order—meaning that the trial court did not have the 

opportunity to address the issue. Under these circumstances, we do not believe 

that Garcia compels a reversal.

[9] Moreover, even if it there was error with respect to the restitution order, we find 

that it was not fundamental. “Evidence supporting a restitution order is 

sufficient ‘if it affords a reasonable basis for estimating loss and does not subject 

the trier of fact to mere speculation or conjecture.’” J.H. v. State, 950 N.E.2d 

731, 734 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting T.C. v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1222, 1227 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2005)). Additionally, the “[s]trict rules of evidence do not apply 

in sentencing hearings, and hearsay evidence . . . is admissible.” Lasley v. 

State, 510 N.E.2d 1340, 1342 (Ind. 1987). In this case, the uncontested 

evidence presented to the trial court regarding restitution can be found in the 

probable cause affidavit, which was supported by Roach’s statement that $400 

had been stolen from her purse. We can only find that this evidence provided a 

sufficient basis for determining the loss and did not require the trial court to 

base its order on mere speculation or conjecture. Consequently, we decline to 

reverse the restitution order.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2602 | March 31, 2020 Page 6 of 7

II. Appropriateness

[10] Lisk also argues that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate in 

light of the nature of the offense and her character pursuant to Indiana 

Appellate Rule 7(B). We must “conduct [this] review with substantial 

deference and give ‘due consideration’ to the trial court’s decision—since the 

‘principal role of [our] review is to attempt to leaven the outliers,’ and not to 

achieve a perceived ‘correct’ sentence.” Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 

(Ind. 2014) (quoting Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. 2013)) 

(internal citations omitted).

[11] Lisk pleaded guilty to a Level 6 felony, for which she faced a sentence of six 

months to two and one-half years, with an advisory term of one year. Ind. 

Code § 35-50-2-7(b). The trial court imposed the maximum term but ordered 

that six months of the sentence be served on community corrections.

[12] As to the nature of Lisk’s offense, she took advantage of a coworker by stealing 

an unattended purse from the employee area at their place of work. After 

taking the cash from the purse, Lisk then left it in the backseat of a Lyft vehicle. 

Given that the purse contained many important personal items, including a 

social security card and birth certificate, this action could have caused Roach 

substantial harm. Lisk’s actions also left Roach stranded at work, with no 

money, driver’s license, or car keys.

[13] As to Lisk’s character, she has a lengthy criminal history that includes

convictions related to dishonesty, such as theft, fraud, and identity deception. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2602 | March 31, 2020 Page 7 of 7

She has violated the terms of alternative placement in previous cases and was 

on probation at the time she committed the instant offense. The trial court also 

noted that Lisk had lied during the presentence investigation interview, 

reporting that she was receiving several types of counseling that she was not 

actually enrolled in or attending.

[14] While it may seem to some that a maximum sentence under these 

circumstances is harsh,2 we cannot say that it is inappropriate given the trial 

court’s conclusions about Lisk’s history of dishonesty, including her past 

convictions as well as her dishonest behavior during these proceedings. 

[15] In sum, the length of the sentence imposed by the trial court is not 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and Lisk’s character.

[16] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Bradford, C.J., and Pyle, J., concur.

2

Indeed, the sentence imposed by the trial court substantially exceeded that recommended by the probation 

department. The probation department recommended that Lisk be sentenced to 545 days on community 

corrections work release. In this way, the probation department believed that Lisk’s mental health needs 

could be met on an ongoing basis.