Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1508-CR-1104 | March 2, 2016 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

Steven E. Ripstra

Ripstra Law Office

Jasper, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Karl M. Scharnberg

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Maxine Lauren Kemper,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

March 2, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

82A01-1508-CR-1104

Appeal from the Vanderburgh 

Superior Court

The Honorable Wayne S. 

Trockman, Judge

The Honorable Kristina Hamby 

Weiberg, Pro Tem

Trial Court Cause No. 82D02-

1504-FD-1896 and 82D02-1504-

FA-1897

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1508-CR-1104 | March 2, 2016 Page 2 of 6

[1] Maxine Lauren Kemper pled guilty to various felony counts and, pursuant to 

the plea agreement, entered the Vanderburgh County Day Reporting Drug 

Court (Drug Court). She subsequently violated the terms of her Drug Court 

commitment on more than one occasion. As a result, the trial court entered 

various sanctions against Kemper. On appeal, she argues that the sanctions 

imposed were too severe and thus constitute an abuse of discretion.

Facts & Procedural History

[2] On December 5, 2013, the State charged Kemper with class D felony theft and 

class D felony assisting a criminal. Thereafter, on May 5, 2014, the State 

charged her under a separate cause number with class A felony dealing in 

methamphetamine, class C felony possession of methamphetamine, class D 

felony possession of methamphetamine, class D felony possession of 

paraphernalia, class D felony possession of a controlled substance, and class A 

misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

[3] On April 2, 2015, Kemper pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to 

theft, assisting a criminal, and possession of methamphetamine, all as class D 

felonies. The five remaining charges were dismissed. The agreement provided 

that the trial court would withhold judgment of conviction for eighteen months 

in order to provide Kemper the opportunity to complete Drug Court. If she 

successfully completed Drug Court, the three charges to which she pled guilty 

would be dismissed. On the other hand, if she failed Drug Court, the trial court 

would then enter judgment of conviction on the three D felony counts.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1508-CR-1104 | March 2, 2016 Page 3 of 6

[4] Kemper tested positive for methamphetamine on May 11, 2015. A petition to 

revoke placement was taken under advisement but never filed because Kemper 

entered and successfully completed the detox and residential phase of Drug 

Court. She began the aftercare portion of the program on June 17, 2015.

[5] On June 26, 2015, Deputy John Helfrich conducted a home visit at Kemper’s 

listed address. Two juvenile males – Kemper’s brothers – answered the door 

and informed the deputy that Kemper no longer lived at the residence. They 

indicated that she was staying with her boyfriend. Thereafter, Deputy Helfrich 

spoke with Kemper on the phone. Kemper initially indicated that she was 

living at the listed address but eventually admitted that she had been staying 

with a girlfriend. Upon further questioning, Kemper acknowledged that a male 

with a criminal drug history was also staying there. Kemper said she had an 

appointment with her case manager – Andrea Hillgoth – that afternoon, and 

Deputy Helfrich told her to keep that appointment. He then informed Hillgoth 

of the situation. When she met with Hillgoth later that day, Kemper admitted

that she had not been staying at her listed address for the last five days.

[6] Hillgoth filed a petition to revoke on June 30, 2015, as a result of Kemper’s 

violation of the rules of Drug Court. Specifically, Kemper had failed to notify 

Hillgoth within twenty-four hours of her change in address. Following an 

evidentiary hearing on July 7, 2015, the trial court found that Kemper had 

violated the rules of Drug Court. As a sanction, the court ordered her to spend 

a night in jail and write a paper explaining the importance of transparency in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1508-CR-1104 | March 2, 2016 Page 4 of 6

recovery. Kemper served her night in jail on July 10, 2015, and was released 

the following day.

[7] Three days later, Kemper tested positive for alcohol and was immediately taken 

into custody until her revocation hearing on July 21, 2015. At the hearing, 

Kemper admitted the violation and asked that she be released from jail and 

returned to Counseling for Change. In addition to time served and a directive 

to follow the recommendations of her case manager, the trial court ordered 

Kemper to adhere to a curfew1 and report to Counseling for Change.

Discussion & Decision

[8] Kemper challenges the sanctions imposed by the trial court on July 7 and 21, 

2015. She asserts that the sanctions constitute an abuse of discretion because 

they were “too severe” in light of all the facts and circumstances. Appellant’s 

Brief at 6. In this regard, she describes her first violation as “definitional and 

technical in nature” and her second violation as “a minor relapse”. Id. at 6, 4.

[9] Drug Court is a forensic diversion program akin to community corrections and 

probation. Withers v. State, 15 N.E.3d 660, 665 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). 

Accordingly, we review a trial court’s sentencing decisions for Drug Court 

violations for an abuse of discretion. Id. We will find an abuse of discretion 

 

1 Kemper was directed to be at her listed address between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1508-CR-1104 | March 2, 2016 Page 5 of 6

only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and 

circumstances. Id. 

[10] Upon finding that Kemper violated a condition of Drug Court, the trial court 

was permitted to:

(1) continue the individual’s participation in [Drug Court] with 

or without modifying or expanding the individual’s conditions 

for participating in [Drug Court]; or

(2) terminate the individual’s participation in [Drug Court].

Ind. Code Ann. § 33-23-16-14.5(e). Despite repeated violations, the court 

decided to continue Kemper in Drug Court with certain modifications.

[11] After the first finding of a violation, the court adopted the sanction suggested by 

the case manager and ordered Kemper to serve one night in jail and write a 

paper regarding the importance of transparency in recovery. Kemper 

challenges this sanction as too severe for a violation that is definitional and 

technical in nature. We are not persuaded that the trial court abused its 

discretion in this regard. The evidence establishes that within days of 

completing the residential portion of the program and entering aftercare, 

Kemper began staying somewhere other than her listed residence, along with a 

man with a criminal drug history. She stayed there for five days before Deputy 

Helfrich discovered her absence from her listed address and alerted her case 

manager. In light of this clear violation, the trial court could have imposed a 

much greater sanction than it did. Cf. Podlusky v. State, 839 N.E.2d 198, 203 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1508-CR-1104 | March 2, 2016 Page 6 of 6

(Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (affirming the revocation of probation for defendant’s 

“seemingly minor violation of moving back to her former residence, knowing 

that the probation office had the address, and not immediately notifying her 

probation officer of this change”).

[12] Kemper’s second violation came shortly on the heels of her first. Within three 

days after serving a night in jail for the first violation, she drank alcohol and 

failed a urinalysis. The rules of Drug Court expressly provide that there will be 

sanctions for positive urinalyses, including removal from the program. Rather 

than removing Kemper, the court ordered her to return to Counseling for 

Change – the sanction requested by Kemper – and imposed a curfew requiring

her to be home every night from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Under the 

circumstances, this sanction was not an abuse of discretion. Cf. Crump v. State, 

740 N.E.2d 564, 573 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (upholding revocation of probation 

where defendant violated probation by consuming alcohol), trans. denied.

[13] Judgment affirmed.

[14] Robb, J. and Barnes, J., concur.