Rayna Robbins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 03 2015, 10:14 am
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 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Leanna Weissmann Gregory F. Zoeller
Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Christina D. Pace
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Rayna Robbins, December 3, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
15A04-1504-CR-169
v. Appeal from the Dearborn Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable James Humphrey,
Appellee-Plaintiff. 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 six-
year-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 4 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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1504-CR-169 | December 3, 2015 Page 5 of 5