Amanda R. Lee v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION Mar 31 2015, 9:36 am
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 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark A. Thoma Gregory F. Zoeller
Leonard, Hammond, Thoma & Terrill Attorney General of Indiana
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Angela N. Sanchez
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Amanda R. Lee, March 31, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
02A05-1409-CR-423
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
The Honorable Frances C. Gull,
State of Indiana, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff Cause No. 02D04-1403-FB-65
Bailey, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Amanda R. Lee (“Lee”) appeals the aggregate twelve-year sentence imposed
following her plea of guilty to Dealing in Methamphetamine, as a Class B
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1409-CR-423| March 31, 2015 Page 1 of 6
felony,1 Maintaining a Common Nuisance2 and Dumping Controlled Substance
Waste, Class D felonies,3 and Possession of Paraphernalia, as a Class A
misdemeanor.4 She presents the sole issue of whether her sentence is
inappropriate. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On April 14, 2014, without the benefit of a plea agreement, Lee pled guilty to
Dealing in Methamphetamine, Maintaining a Common Nuisance, Dumping
Controlled Substance Waste, and Possession of Paraphernalia. She was
allowed to participate in the Allen County Drug Program; successful
completion would have resulted in dismissal of the charges.
[3] However, on July 21, 2014, the trial court revoked Lee’s participation in the
alternative program. By that time, Lee had been evicted from Hope House,
where she had been living. She had failed to appear at a drug court compliance
hearing, she had twice tested positive for methamphetamine, and she had been
arrested on a new methamphetamine charge.
1
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1. This statute has been revised, effective July 1, 2014, to provide that Dealing in
Methamphetamine is now a Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, or Level 5 felony. We refer to the version of the
statute in effect at the time of Lee’s offense.
2
I.C. § 35-48-4-13. The offense is now a Level 6 felony.
3
I.C. § 35-48-4-4.1. The offense is now a Level 6 felony.
4
I.C. § 35-48-4-8.3.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1409-CR-423| March 31, 2015 Page 2 of 6
[4] On August 27, 2014, the trial court sentenced Lee to twelve years for Dealing in
Methamphetamine, two years each for Maintaining a Common Nuisance and
Dumping Controlled Substance Waste, and one year for Possession of
Paraphernalia. All sentences were to be served concurrently. This appeal
ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Upon conviction of a Class B felony, Lee was subject to a sentence of between
six years and twenty years, with ten years as the advisory term. I.C. § 35-50-2-
5.5 Upon conviction of a Class D felony, Lee was subject to a sentence of
between six months and three years, with one and one-half years as the
advisory term. I.C. § 35-50-2-7.6 Upon conviction of a Class A misdemeanor,
Lee was subject to a sentence of up to one year. I.C. § 35-50-3-2. When
imposing the aggregate twelve-year sentence, the trial court found Lee’s guilty
plea to be mitigating. As aggravators, the trial court recognized Lee’s criminal
history and failure to benefit from prior rehabilitative measures.
[6] The authority granted to this Court by Article 7, § 6 of the Indiana Constitution
permitting appellate review and revision of criminal sentences is implemented
through Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides: “The Court may revise a
5
This statutory provision was modified, effective July 1, 2014, to include the penalty for Level 3 felonies.
6
This statutory provision was modified, effective July 1, 2014, to include the penalty for Level 6 felonies.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1409-CR-423| March 31, 2015 Page 3 of 6
sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s
decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature
of the offense and the character of the offender.” In performing our review, we
assess “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.”
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). The principal role of such
review is to attempt to leaven the outliers. Id. at 1225. A defendant ‘“must
persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met th[e]
inappropriateness standard of review.”’ Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494
(Ind. 2007) (quoting Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)).
[7] As to the nature of Lee’s offenses, she engaged in the manufacture of
methamphetamine; the manufacture took place in a rented residence
maintained by Lee; Lee disposed of methamphetamine waste; and she
possessed drug paraphernalia.
[8] Lee admitted to her guilt of the foregoing offenses, and this admission reflects
favorably upon her character. See Cotto v. State, 829 N.E.2d 520, 526 (Ind.
2005). Although Lee claims to be bi-polar, she reported to the pre-sentence
investigator that she was not taking medication for a mental health disorder.
[9] By the age of twenty-five, Lee had already compiled a substantial criminal
history. She also has a significant history of failure to benefit from
rehabilitative efforts short of incarceration.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1409-CR-423| March 31, 2015 Page 4 of 6
[10] Lee had a single juvenile delinquency adjudication, for Possession of
Marijuana. She violated the terms of her informal adjustment and was placed
on juvenile probation. As an adult, Lee compiled two prior felony convictions
and four prior misdemeanor convictions. In 2007, she committed Battery and
Invasion of Privacy, as Class A misdemeanors. She was placed on
unsupervised probation, but her sentence was modified and she was ordered to
serve a sixty-day sentence.
[11] In 2008, she committed Invasion of Privacy as a Class D felony. Her
suspended sentence was revoked and she was ordered to serve two years on
home detention. Her home detention placement was revoked, and she was
committed to the Indiana Department of Correction. Also in 2008, Lee
committed a second offense of Invasion of Privacy, as a Class D felony. The
suspended sentence was revoked and she was incarcerated. In 2012, Lee
committed Domestic Battery, as a Class A misdemeanor. In 2013, Lee was
convicted of Disorderly Conduct, as a Class B misdemeanor.
[12] Upon Lee’s April 14, 2014 plea, she was initially placed into a drug court
program. One week later, she missed a scheduled drug screen. On April 23
and April 25, 2014, Lee tested positive for methamphetamine. She was
unsuccessfully discharged from Hope House due to non-compliance with
program rules. She failed to appear in court on June 16, 2014 and was arrested.
On July 11, 2014, Lee was arrested on a new Dealing in Methamphetamine
charge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1409-CR-423| March 31, 2015 Page 5 of 6
Having reviewed the matter, we conclude that the trial court did not
impose an inappropriate sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B), and the sentence
does not warrant appellate revision. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the
sentence imposed by the trial court.
[13] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1409-CR-423| March 31, 2015 Page 6 of 6