Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1504-CR-169 | December 3, 2015 Page 1 of 5

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

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Christina D. Pace

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Rayna Robbins,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

December 3, 2015

Court of Appeals Cause No.

15A04-1504-CR-169

Appeal from the Dearborn Circuit

Court

The Honorable James Humphrey, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

15C01-1402-FB-8

Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1504-CR-169 | December 3, 2015 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary

[1] Rayna Robbins appeals her sentence for two counts of Class B felony dealing in 

a controlled substance and one count of Class D felony neglect of a dependent. 

We affirm. 

Issue

[2] Robbins raises one issue, which we restate as whether her sentence is 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the 

offender.

Facts

[3] During August of 2013, Lawrenceburg Police Detective Nicholas Beetz made 

several purchases of oxycodone and buprenorphine from Robbins. During the 

first controlled purchase, Robbins said that she might be able to get a bulk rate 

from a supplier in West Virginia. During another controlled purchase, Robbins 

was selling buprenorphine to Detective Beetz in her driveway, and Robbins’s

six-year-old child observed the sale. During another controlled purchase, 

Robbins asked Detective Beetz if he knew of other potential buyers, told him 

she was on probation, and said she knew how to avoid a positive drug screen. 

[4] The State charged Robbins with two counts of Class B felony dealing in a 

controlled substance and one count of Class D felony neglect of a dependent. 

Robbins pled guilty as charged. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found 

Robbins’s criminal history and the fact that she was a significant drug dealer in 

the community as aggravating factors. The trial court considered her guilty 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1504-CR-169 | December 3, 2015 Page 3 of 5

plea as a mitigator but found it was entitled to reduced consideration because of 

the overwhelming evidence against her. The trial court considered but did not 

find undue hardship on her minor children was a mitigator. The trial court 

sentenced Robbins to twenty years with three years suspended to probation for 

each of the dealing in a controlled substance convictions and three years for the 

neglect of a dependent conviction with the sentences to be served concurrently. 

Robbins received an aggregate sentence of twenty years with three years 

suspended to probation. She now appeals.

Analysis

[5] Robbins argues that her twenty-year sentence is inappropriate. Indiana 

Appellate Rule 7(B) permits us to 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. Although Appellate Rule 7(B) does not require us to be “extremely”

deferential to a trial court’s sentencing decision, we still must give due 

consideration to that decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2007). We also understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial 

court brings to its sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a defendant bears 

the burden of persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is 

inappropriate.” Id.

[6] The principal role of Appellate Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to 

leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and 

those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1504-CR-169 | December 3, 2015 Page 4 of 5

perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 

(Ind. 2008). We “should focus on the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather 

than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the 

sentence on any individual count.” Id. Whether a sentence is inappropriate 

ultimately 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. Id. at 1224. 

[7] The nature of the offense is that Robbins repeatedly sold controlled substances 

to an undercover police officer. At one of the controlled buys, Robbins’s sixyear-old child observed the sale. Robbins also told the undercover officer that 

she might be able to get a bulk rate from a supplier out of state, that she was on 

probation, and that she knew how to avoid having a positive drug screen. She 

also sought to expand her business by asking him if he knew of other potential 

buyers. Robbins pled guilty as charged, but there was overwhelming evidence 

against her to support the charges.

[8] As for Robbins’s character, she has a significant criminal history and history of 

substance abuse. Robbins has felony convictions for theft on three occasions, 

forgery, and check fraud. She was on probation at the time of these offenses, 

and she also has pending charges for theft in another county. She has violated 

her probation on nine occasions. The thirty-seven-year-old Robbins began 

abusing drugs as a teenager, and opiates have been her drug of choice for the 

past twelve years. She has also abused Xanax for the past fifteen years. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1504-CR-169 | December 3, 2015 Page 5 of 5

[9] Robbins argues that she is a drug addict and that she sold drugs and stole to 

“feed her addictions.” Appellant’s Br. p. 6. She contends that she has made 

strides to overcome her addictions while incarcerated, that she has been taking 

the JCAP program, and that she has begun taking control of her addiction. She 

asks that we resentence her to the advisory term of ten years. 

[10] We recognize Robbins’s addiction, but we also note that Robbins had many 

opportunities to address her addiction issues and failed to do so. Moreover, 

given Robbins’s criminal history, the fact that she was on probation at the time 

of the offenses, and the fact that she was dealing controlled substances in front 

of her child, we conclude that her twenty-year sentence with three years 

suspended is not inappropriate.

Conclusion

[11] Robbins’s sentence is not inappropriate. We affirm.

[12] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Najam, J., concur.