Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A05-1601-CR-68 | February 15, 2017 Page 1 of 15

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

Leanna Weissmann

Lawrenceburg, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 

Attorney General of Indiana

Jesse R. Drum

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Allison Moore,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

February 15, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

69A05-1601-CR-68

Appeal from the Ripley Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Jeffrey L. Sharp, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

69C01-1301-MR-1

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A05-1601-CR-68 | February 15, 2017 Page 2 of 15

Statement of the Case

[1] Allison Moore (“Moore”) appeals the sentence imposed following her 

convictions for murder,

1 Class B felony burglary,2 and Class B felony conspiracy 

to commit burglary.3 She specifically contends that the trial court abused its 

discretion in imposing consecutive sentences and that her one-hundred-and-five

(105) year sentence is inappropriate. Concluding that the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences and that her sentence is 

not inappropriate, we affirm.

Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing 

consecutive sentences.

2. Whether Moore’s sentence is inappropriate.

Facts

[2] While having dinner on December 29, 2012, twenty-two-year-old Ohio resident 

Moore asked her mother if she would “tell on” Moore if Moore told her that 

she had killed someone. (Tr. 2404). Moore’s mother responded that she 

would, and Moore replied that she would not confide in her mother if she ever 

did anything like that. 

 

1

IND. CODE § 35-42-1-1.

2

I.C. § 35-43-2-1.

3

I.C. § 35-43-2-1; I.C. § 35-41-5-2.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A05-1601-CR-68 | February 15, 2017 Page 3 of 15

[3] After dinner, Moore and her fifteen-year-old neighbor D.H. (“D.H.”) picked up 

D.H,’s friends, fifteen-year-old K.B. (“K.B.”), fifteen-year-old S.N. (“S.N.”), 

and S.N.’s nineteen-year-old brother Ben Nichols (“Nichols”). While they were 

riding around in Moore’s car, D.H., who knew that S.N. carried a .40 caliber 

handgun, suggested stealing money and drugs from Ryan Jackson (“Jackson”) 

in Cross Plains, Indiana. D.H. claimed that he thought Jackson would have a 

“couple of thousand dollars.” (Tr. 2020). 

[4] The drive from Ohio to Cross Plains in Moore’s car took forty-five minutes to 

an hour. Along the way, Moore and the young men smoked marijuana. When 

they arrived at Jackson’s house, Moore parked down the street. D.H. and S.N. 

covered their faces with a mask, walked to Jackson’s front door, and kicked it 

open. Jackson’s mother was asleep on the couch, and Jackson was in his 

bedroom with his girlfriend, Emily Spencer-King (“Spencer-King”). 

[5] When D.H. opened Jackson’s bedroom door, Jackson slammed it shut. D.H. 

kicked the door back open and told Jackson he was “going to kill this b[****]

on the couch if you don’t come out.” (Tr. 2029). Jackson opened the door, and 

S.N. pointed the gun at Jackson and Spencer-King and demanded money and 

marijuana. Jackson gave D.H. and S.N. two bags of marijuana and $300.00 to 

$400.00. The two young men ran back to Moore’s car and gave the money to 

Moore, who needed it for a trip to Georgia. 

[6] The young men wanted to go home, but a dissatisfied Moore said they “needed 

to get another one.” (Tr. 2034). Moore drove to a house that D.H. was 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A05-1601-CR-68 | February 15, 2017 Page 4 of 15

familiar with but the young men did not attempt to go inside because of an 

alarm system. D.H. suggested one more stop in Milan and directed Moore to 

sixty-eight-year-old Nancy Hershman’s (“Hershman”) house. When they 

arrived at approximately 12:30 a.m., Moore got out of the car with D.H. and 

S.N. because she did not “think [they] were doing anything right.” (Tr. 2040). 

Specifically, Moore told the young men that they were “being a bunch of 

p***ies.” (Tr. 2122-23). Moore asked S.N. for his gun and a glove, which he 

gave her. He also instructed her on how to use the gun’s safety.

[7] Moore, D.H., and S.N. approached Hershman’s house, and D.H. kicked open 

the back door. Moore went inside first and the two young men followed. 

While the young men looked around the house for items to steal, Moore 

headed directly to a downstairs bedroom, where she discovered Hershman, 

who was in her pajamas. When Hershman began screaming, Moore told her to 

“shut up, b****” and not to test her. (Tr. 2178). Hershman pushed Moore and 

reached for the gun. Moore pushed Hershman back and shot her in the throat.

[8] After the shooting, Moore, D.H., and S.N. quickly ran out of the house without 

taking any property. On the way back to the car, S.N. asked for his gun back 

because he was afraid that Moore might shoot him too. When they got back to 

the car, Moore told K.B. and Nichols that she had shot a woman. Moore 

further stated that she “thought [she] would have had a little bit more remorse 

for killing somebody but [she] didn’t.” (Tr. 2068). Moore drove the four young 

men back to Ohio. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A05-1601-CR-68 | February 15, 2017 Page 5 of 15

[9] Hershman’s daughter, Dawn Evans (“Evans”), who had been upstairs watching 

television when she heard a thud, went downstairs and found her mother lying 

in her bedroom doorway. Evans put a towel on Hershman’s neck to try and 

stop the bleeding. However, because of the extent of Hershman’s injury, there 

was nothing Evans could do to help her mother, and Hershman died in front of 

Evans.

[10] D.H., S.N., K.B., and Nichols eventually confessed, and the police questioned 

and arrested Moore.

4 She was subsequently charged with: (1) murder for 

killing Hershman; (2) burglary for breaking and entering Hershman’s home 

with the intent to commit theft; and (3) conspiracy to commit burglary for 

agreeing with D.H. or S.N. to commit the burglary of Jackson’s home. A jury 

convicted Moore as charged.

[11] At the December 2015 sentencing hearing, Ripley County Sheriff’s Office 

Deputy and jail administrator Bob Curl (“Deputy Curl”) testified that Moore 

had received thirteen jail write-up reports for incidents such as using abusive 

language to staff, failing to comply with staff orders, throwing objects at staff, 

and attempting to destroy property of the staff. In addition, while incarcerated, 

Moore was charged with battery resulting in bodily injury as a Class A 

misdemeanor for knowingly or intentionally touching another inmate in a rude, 

 

4

 The trial court granted Moore’s motion to suppress her police statement. This Court affirmed the 

suppression in an interlocutory appeal. See State v. Moore, 23 N.E.3d 840 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A05-1601-CR-68 | February 15, 2017 Page 6 of 15

insolent, or angry manner and intimidation for threatening an inmate that had 

testified at Moore’s trial. 

[12] Following the sentencing hearing, the trial court issued a detailed seventeenpage Pronouncement of Sentence, which provides in relevant part as follows:

Aggravating Factors

[1.] Nature and circumstances of the crime - Murder and 

Burglary of Nancy Hershman

The Court finds the nature and circumstances of the crimes 

committed by the defendant as a significant aggravating factor. 

The facts supported by the evidence introduced at trial show that 

the defendant murdered Nancy Hershman after breaking into her 

home in the early morning hours of December 30, 2012. The 

defendant entered the home armed with a .40 caliber handgun 

loaded with hollow point bullets. Just hours prior to the murder 

the defendant asked her mother over dinner, “If I ever killed 

anyone, would you tell on me.” Prior to entering the home, the 

defendant retrieved the gun and glove from one of the codefendants. 

* * * *

Mrs. Hershman was a random unsuspecting victim lying in her 

bed presumably safe and secure in her home. The Court finds 

that this type of crime is extremely heinous in nature. The 

victim’s family continues to feel its effects. Someone randomly 

picking your house and kicking in the door armed with a deadly 

weapon in the middle of the night is a horrific nightmare. There 

was very little, if anything, a home owner or law enforcement 

could do to prevent this horrific offense. A person who chooses 

to act with such disregard for another human being’s life and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A05-1601-CR-68 | February 15, 2017 Page 7 of 15

property, and take complete control of another’s fate commits the 

very worst type of crime. 

* * * *

A sixty-eight-year-old woman, unarmed and outnumbered, 

screamed out and made desperate attempts to grab the gun. The 

Court can only imagine the sheer terror that Mrs. Hershman 

must have felt in the final moments of her life.

* * * *

Therefore, after reviewing the nature of the offense and the facts 

surrounding the crime the Court finds that this was a particularly 

heinous, terrorizing, and deliberate act and considers this to be a 

significant aggravating circumstance.

[2.] Nature and circumstances of the crime - Conspiracy to 

commit Burglary of Ryan Jackson and Emily Spencer-King

The evidence shows that the defendant made an agreement with 

the co-defendants [D.H.] and [S.N.] to rob Ryan Jackson. These 

parties discussed this plan in the car ride from Colerain, Ohio to 

Ryan Jackson’s home in Cross Plains. The defendant was the 

driver of the car and completed the overt act as charged by 

driving to the victim’s home. The parties had a lengthy car ride 

to think about this plan. It was not an impulsive act but yet 

another deliberate violent crime committed by the defendant.

* * * *

Once again the Court cannot think of a more frightening 

situation than to be awakened from your sleep by an individual 

pointing a firearm at you. This burglary was particularly heinous

in that the parties were armed with a deadly weapon and 

threatened to not only shoot Mr. Jackson (the intended victim), 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A05-1601-CR-68 | February 15, 2017 Page 8 of 15

but also his mother. The fact that the burglary took place at night 

when the victim was at home and in bed, and committed while 

armed with a deadly weapon makes this crime particularly 

egregious and goes beyond the basic elements of the offense.

* * * *

The Court finds the facts particularly egregious considering this 

burglary took place at night, while the victims were home asleep 

in bed, armed with a deadly weapon and threatened to shoot the 

victim and his mother. . . . Therefore, the Court finds that nature 

and circumstances of the crime a significant aggravating factor.

[3.] Victim over 65

Under I.C. § 35-38-1-7.1(3), the Court may consider an 

aggravating factor that the victim was at least sixty-five years of 

age at the time the defendant committed the offense. At the time 

of Mrs. Hershman’s murder she was sixty-eight years old. 

Therefore, the Court finds this to be an aggravating 

circumstance.

[4.] Lack of Remorse

[T]he defendant stated immediately after the shooting that, “I’ve 

never shot anyone before, I don’t know how to feel, and I 

thought I would feel worse.” The Court finds that the words 

spoken by the defendant immediately after the shooting, outside 

the setting of a sentencing hearing, as extremely persuasive in 

determining the defendant’s level of remorse. 

After viewing the defendant’s demeanor through the course of 

these proceedings and considering the defendant’s testimony at 

sentencing and letter to the court with the statements made 

immediately after the shooting, the Court finds the defendant’s 

alleged remorse as nothing more than shallow self-serving 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A05-1601-CR-68 | February 15, 2017 Page 9 of 15

attempts to help her cause and not true acts of remorse or 

acceptance of responsibility for her actions. The Court finds the 

lack of remorse as a significant aggravating factor.

[5.] Character of the defendant

Testimony was presented at trial that the defendant was 

aggravated with the co-defendants for not breaking into a 

residence in between Ryan Jackson’s residence and Mrs. 

Hershman’s home. She was so aggravated that when they got to 

Mrs. Hershman’s residence, the defendant stated she was going 

in because the co-defendants weren’t doing it right.

* * * *

While incarcerated the defendant has received thirteen separate 

jail write ups, ranging from abusive language to staff, failing to 

comply with orders from staff, throwing objects at jail staff, and 

attempting to destroy property of the jail. . . . The defendant has 

been involved in at least three separate physical altercations 

while incarcerated. One of which led to a new charge of Battery. 

. . . The Court also finds it significant that the defendant 

threatened, Amanda Napier, a jail house informant who testified 

against her. . . . This threat resulted in a separate charge of 

Intimidation as a Level 6 felony.

The Court finds that the defendant’s lack of respect for authority

and rules, inability to control her anger and propensity for 

violence as aggravating circumstances. Furthermore, the Court 

finds that these character traits indicate that the defendant is an 

extreme danger to the community and likely to reoffend.

[6.] Victim Impact

The Court considers the impact this crime had on Mrs. 

Hershman’s family a significant aggravating circumstance. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A05-1601-CR-68 | February 15, 2017 Page 10 of 15

Dawn Evans, Mrs. Hershman’s daughter, testified that a large 

part of her life is now gone. . . . The Court also recalls her 

testimony at trial and the 911 call. Ms. Evans was the first 

person to find her mother. She witnessed firsthand the damage 

to the throat of her mother caused by the bullet. She placed a 

towel on the wound in an attempt to help: but due to the extent 

of the damage there was nothing she could do. On the 911 call 

you can hear the fear, desperation and terror in her voice, stating, 

“My mother is dying right in front of me.” She is now not able 

to live in the home because of these events.

* * * *

The Court recognizes that in any murder there will be an impact 

on family members. A loved one is lost and the family loses 

everything that comes with that. However, in this case the court 

considers the impact on the family with regards to the evidence 

presented at trial. They had to hear Mrs. Hershman referred to 

as a [b****] and “old lady.” They had to listen to the codefendants recount the details of the shooting. They had to view 

pictures of Mrs. Hershman lying dead in the doorway of her 

bedroom. They had to listen to a detailed account of the damage 

done by the bullet to Mrs. Hershman’s body. They had to view 

pictures of the wounds taken during the autopsy showing the 

[three] inch hole in Mrs. Hershman’s throat. . . .

Therefore, the Court considers the impact on the victim’s family 

to be greater than the expected or normal impact in a murder and 

considers it a significant aggravating circumstance.

(Appellant’s App. Vol. 6, 2-11).

[13] [The trial court sentenced Moore to sixty-five (65) years for murder, twenty (20) 

years for burglary, and twenty (20) years for conspiracy to commit burglary. 

The court further ordered the sentences to run consecutively to each other, for 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A05-1601-CR-68 | February 15, 2017 Page 11 of 15

an aggregate sentence of one-hundred and five (105) years in the Department of 

Correction].

The Court recognizes that this is the maximum possible penalty 

allowed under the law. The Court also believes that maximum 

penalties should be reserved for the worst offenses and the worst 

offenders. Given the nature and circumstances of this heinous 

crime, the character of the defendant, a complete lack of remorse 

or acceptance of responsibility, and the impact on the victim’s 

family the Court finds such sentence is warranted in this matter.

Furthermore, the Court finds that after reviewing all of the facts 

of this case, specifically, the deliberateness of the defendant’s 

actions, the randomness of the victim, the complete disregard of 

human life exhibited by shooting a human being in the throat 

with a .40 caliber hollow point bullet in the sanctuary of their 

home; along with the fact that the victim was a sixty-eight year 

old woman, unarmed and outnumbered, that this violent act 

exhibited a level of malicious intent far beyond what was 

necessary. Therefore, after reviewing those factors the Court 

finds the defendant is an extreme danger to society and highly

likely to reoffend.

[14] (Appellant’s App. Vol. 6, 18-19). Moore now appeals. 

Decision

[15] Moore appeals her one-hundred-and-five-year sentence. She specifically argues 

that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences and that her 

sentence is inappropriate. We address each of her contentions in turn.

[16] 1. Consecutive Sentences
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A05-1601-CR-68 | February 15, 2017 Page 12 of 15

[17] Moore first argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. 

The decision to impose consecutive sentences lies within the discretion of the 

trial court. IND. CODE § 35-50-1-2. We will affirm an order of consecutive 

sentences if it is supported by a statement of the trial court’s reasoning and at 

least one aggravating circumstance. McBride v. State, 992 N.E.2d 912, 919-20 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.

[18] Here, the trial court explained its reasoning in a sixteen-page order that listed 

six detailed aggravating circumstances, none of which are challenged by Moore 

on appeal. These aggravating circumstances included the heinous nature and 

horrific circumstances of the offenses, the age of the victim, Moore’s lack of 

remorse, Moore’s poor character as demonstrated by her lack of respect for 

authority and rules as well as her inability to control her anger, and the 

significant impact of the crime on Hershman’s family. These aggravating 

circumstances amply support the trial court’s imposition of consecutive 

sentences, and we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion.5 

2. Inappropriate Sentence

[19] Moore also argues that her one-hundred-and-five-year sentence is 

inappropriate. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we may revise a 

 

5 Moore further argues that “concurrent sentences more fairly reflect [the] episodic nature of [the] Hershman 

burglary and murder.” (Moore’s Br. 24). However, as she further acknowledges in her brief, the singleepisode rule, which caps the total consecutive sentence for crimes “arising out of an episode of criminal 

conduct,” simply does not apply to violent crimes such as murder and Class B felony burglary. See IND.

CODE § 35-50-1-2. Moore’s argument therefore fails. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A05-1601-CR-68 | February 15, 2017 Page 13 of 15

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. The defendant bears the burden of 

persuading this Court that her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 

N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate 

turns on 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 v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008).

[20] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge that 

the advisory sentence is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an 

appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. 

Here, Moore was convicted of murder, Class B felony burglary, and Class B 

felony conspiracy to commit burglary. The sentencing range for murder is from 

forty-five (45) to sixty-five (65) years, with an advisory sentence of fifty-five (55) 

years. I.C. § 35-50-2-3. The trial court sentenced Moore to sixty-five (65) years, 

which is the maximum sentence. In addition, the sentencing range for a Class 

B felony is from six (6) to twenty (20) years, with an advisory sentence of ten 

(10) years. I.C. § 35-50-2-5. The trial court sentenced Moore to twenty years for 

both Class B felony convictions, which is also the maximum sentence. The trial 

court then ordered the sentences to run consecutively, for a total sentence of 

one hundred and five (105) years. 

[21] With regard to the nature of the offenses, twenty-two-year-old Moore drove a 

group of young men, including three fifteen-year-olds, from Ohio to Indiana for 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A05-1601-CR-68 | February 15, 2017 Page 14 of 15

the sole purpose of committing crimes. The first stop was Jackson’s home, 

where D.H. and S.N. busted down the door, threatened to shoot Jackson’s 

mother, and robbed Jackson and his girlfriend at gunpoint. The next stop was 

sixty-eight-year-old Hershman’s home. Moore, wearing a glove, entered the 

home armed with a .40 caliber handgun loaded with hollow point bullets and 

headed directly to the bedroom, where she found Hershman in her pajamas. 

After a brief verbal exchange, Moore shot Hershman in the throat and then left 

her to die.

[22] With regard to her character, we note that Moore appeared to have planned to 

kill someone on the night of the offenses. Moore asked her mother if she would 

“tell on” Moore if Moore told her she had killed someone and then drove three 

fifteen-year-old young men across state lines to commit crimes. (Tr. 2404). 

After the young men had committed the first crime and given Moore the money 

they had stolen from Jackson, they were ready to return home. Moore, 

however, was not satisfied. She went into Hershman’s home armed with a gun, 

walked directly to Hershman’s bedroom, and murdered her. Moore then told 

the young men that she thought she would have had a little more remorse for 

killing someone but that she did not. After being arrested, and while 

incarcerated at the county jail, Moore received thirteen write-up reports for bad 

behavior. Two of these incidents led to charges for battery and intimidation. 

Clearly, Moore has no respect for the law.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A05-1601-CR-68 | February 15, 2017 Page 15 of 15

[23] Based on the nature of the offenses and her character, Moore has failed to 

persuade this Court that her one-hundred-and five (105) year sentence is 

inappropriate.

[24] Affirmed.

Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.