Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-518 | August 24, 2020 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

Adam C. Potts

McCoy Law Office

Lafayette, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Steven Hosler

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Joanna Marie Allis-Rucker,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

August 24, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-518

Appeal from the Tippecanoe 

Superior Court 

The Honorable Randy J. Williams, 

Judge 

Trial Court Cause No.

79D01-1905-F4-26 

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-518 | August 24, 2020 Page 2 of 6

[1] Joanna Marie Allis-Rucker appeals her sentence for dealing in 

methamphetamine as a level 4 felony and asserts her sentence is inappropriate. 

We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On May 3, 2019, Allis-Rucker possessed, with the intent to deliver, 

methamphetamine having a weight of at least one gram but less than five 

grams. Law enforcement discovered a lockbox in her possession containing 

approximately 3.7 grams of methamphetamine. The State charged Allis-Rucker 

with dealing in methamphetamine between one and five grams as a level 4 

felony, unlawful possession of a syringe as a level 6 felony, and possession of a 

narcotic drug as a level 6 felony. Allis-Rucker and the State entered into a plea 

agreement pursuant to which she agreed to plead guilty to dealing in 

methamphetamine as a level 4 felony and the State agreed to dismiss the 

remaining counts. 

[3] The court held a guilty plea hearing at which Allis-Rucker pled guilty pursuant 

to the plea agreement. The court found the mitigating factors were that AllisRucker pled guilty and accepted responsibility for her actions, had mental 

health issues, and had the support of her family. It indicated her sentence was 

reduced by 180 days for recently obtaining her high school equivalency 

diploma. It found the aggravating factors were her criminal history, that she 

had eight petitions to revoke probation and was on probation at the time she 

committed the offense, her substance abuse history, and her previous 

unsuccessful attempts at rehabilitation. It also stated that she had a child 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-518 | August 24, 2020 Page 3 of 6

support arrearage. The court sentenced Allis-Rucker to eight and one-half years 

with two years suspended to supervised probation with one and one-half years 

of her executed sentence to be served in community corrections. 

Discussion

[4] Allis-Rucker claims her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and her character. She points to her guilty plea and her mental health 

issues and argues the length of her sentence is an outlier. Ind. Appellate Rule 

7(B) provides that we “may 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.” Under this rule, the burden is on the defendant to persuade the 

appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 

N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

[5] Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5 provides that a person who commits a level 4 felony 

shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two years and twelve years with 

the advisory sentence being six years. 

[6] Our review of the nature of the offense reveals that Allis-Rucker possessed, with 

intent to deliver, methamphetamine having a weight of at least one gram but 

less than five grams. The lockbox discovered in her possession contained 

approximately 3.7 grams of methamphetamine. 

[7] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Allis-Rucker pled guilty 

pursuant to a plea agreement and the agreement provided the other charges 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-518 | August 24, 2020 Page 4 of 6

against her would be dismissed. The presentence investigation report (“PSI”)

reveals, with respect to her mental health, that Allis-Rucker reported she was 

diagnosed with bipolar disorder, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, 

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and depression through Wabash Valley 

Hospital in 2011, and she has been prescribed Prozac and participated in 

counseling at Wabash Valley. The PSI further reveals that Allis-Rucker 

reported she began using drugs at the age of fourteen and last used drugs on

May 3, 2019. She admitted she used methamphetamine daily between the ages

of twenty-seven and thirty-three and used heroin every other day between the 

ages of twenty-eight and thirty-three. Her record of substance abuse treatment 

included court orders to complete alcohol/drug education programs though 

court services in Tippecanoe County and White County in 2006, alcohol/drug 

counseling through Wabash Valley Hospital in 2007, inpatient treatment for 

three months at Recovery Matters in East Chicago in 2014, a resident program 

at The Home with Hope in 2017, Sycamore Springs drug/alcohol counseling in 

2017, and an alcohol/drug program through court services in June 2019. She

stated she committed the instant offense to support her drug habit. 

[8] The PSI further reveals that Allis-Rucker, who was born in 1985, was 

adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile for illegal possession of an alcoholic 

beverage and theft. As an adult, she was convicted of conversion as a class A 

misdemeanor and operating a vehicle with a BAC of .08 or more as a class C

misdemeanor in 2006; public intoxication, failure to stop after accident, and 

disorderly conduct as class B misdemeanors in 2007; conversion as a class A 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-518 | August 24, 2020 Page 5 of 6

misdemeanor in 2011; operating a vehicle as an habitual traffic violator as a 

class D felony and possession of marijuana or synthetic equivalent as a 

misdemeanor in 2012; unlawful sale of a precursor as a class C felony in 2014; 

two counts of unlawful possession of a syringe as level 6 felonies, operating a 

vehicle while intoxicated as a class C misdemeanor, and possession of 

methamphetamine as a level 6 felony in 2017; and leaving the scene of an 

accident with bodily injury and theft as class A misdemeanors in 2019. The PSI 

states Allis-Rucker has had eight petitions to revoke probation filed against her 

which had been found true and she was on probation when she committed the 

instant offense. The PSI also provides that Allis-Rucker’s overall risk 

assessment score using the Indiana Risk Assessment System places her in the 

high risk to reoffend category. 

[9] After due consideration and in light of her criminal history, we conclude that 

Allis-Rucker has not sustained her burden of establishing that her sentence is 

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

1

1 To the extent Allis-Rucker argues the court abused its discretion in failing to give her guilty plea and mental 

health issues the consideration they deserved, we need not address this issue because we find that her

sentence is not inappropriate. See Chappell v. State, 966 N.E.2d 124, 134 n.10 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (noting 

that any error in failing to consider the defendant’s guilty plea as a mitigating factor is harmless if the 

sentence is not inappropriate) (citing Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504, 507 (Ind. 2007) (holding that, in the 

absence of a proper sentencing order, Indiana appellate courts may either remand for resentencing or exercise 

their authority to review the sentence pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)), reh’g denied; Mendoza v. State, 869 

N.E.2d 546, 556 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (noting that, “even if the trial court is found to have abused its 

discretion in the process it used to sentence the defendant, the error is harmless if the sentence imposed was 

not inappropriate”), trans. denied), trans. denied. Even if we were to address Allis-Rucker’s abuse of discretion 

argument, we would not find it persuasive in light of the record.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-518 | August 24, 2020 Page 6 of 6

[10] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Allis-Rucker’s sentence. 

[11] Affirmed. 

Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.