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.

A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Adam C. Potts McCoy Law Office Lafa yette, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE 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 Ca se 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 Procedur al History
[2] On May 3, 2019, Allis

- Ruck er 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 meth amphetamine. 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 th e mitigating factors were that Allis

Rucker 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 childCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A

- CR

- 518 | August 24, 2020 Page 3 of 6 support arrea rage. 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 cor rections.



### Discussion
[4] Allis

- Rucker claims h er sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and h er character. S he points to her guilty plea and her mental health issues and argue s the length of her sentence is an outlier

. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “may revise a se ntence 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 t wo years and twelve years with the advisory sentence being six y ear s
.
[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. Th e 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 chargesCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A

- CR

- 518 | August 24, 2020 Page 4 of 6 agai nst her would be dismissed. The presentence investigation report (“ PSI ”) reveals , with respect to her mental health, that Allis

- Rucker reported she was diagnosed with b ipolar disorder, a nxiety , p ost
- t raumatic s tress d isorder,

a ttention d eficit h yperactivity d isorde r , and d epression through Wabash Valley Hospital in 201 1, and s he has been prescribed Prozac and participated in counseling at Wabash Valley. The PSI further reveals that Allis

- Rucker

r eported s he began using drugs at the age of fo urte en and last us ed 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 d ay between the ages of twenty

- eight and thirty

- three. Her record of substance abuse treatment included court orders to complete alcohol/drug education program s though court services in Tippecanoe County and White County in 2006, alcohol/drug counseling through Wabash Valley Hospital in 2007, inpatient treatment f or three months at Recovery Matters in East Chicago in 2014, a resident program
at T he Home with Hope in 2017, Sycamore Springs drug/alcohol counseling in 2017, and a n 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. A s 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 misdemeanor s in 2007; conversion as a class ACourt 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 felon ies, 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 thef t as class A misdemeanor s 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

- Rucke r’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 h er criminal history, we conclude that Allis

- Rucker has not sustained her burden of estab lishing that h er sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and h er chara cter

. 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 h er 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 con sider 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 argumen t, we would not fi nd 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.