Anita Dustrude v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 26 2019, 9:56 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jennifer A. Joas Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Madison, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Benjamin J. Shoptaw
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Anita Dustrude, June 26, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-127
v. Appeal from the Ripley Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Ryan J. King,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
69C01-1710-F4-18 & 69C01-1807-
F5-30
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 1 of 12
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Anita Dustrude (Dustrude), appeals her sentence
following her guilty plea for dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 4 felony,
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(a)(c)(2); dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 5
felony, I.C. § 35-48-4-1.1; maintaining a common nuisance, a Level 6 felony,
I.C. § 35-45-1-5(c); and unlawful possession of a syringe, a Level 6 felony, I.C. §
16-42-19-18.
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Dustrude presents us with one issue on appeal: Whether her sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of her offenses and her character.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On October 10, 2017, a confidential informant for the Indiana State Police
(ISP) made a controlled buy of one half of a gram of methamphetamine from
Dustrude at her residence on Meridian Street in Sunman, Indiana. Dustrude
had been supplying the confidential informant with methamphetamine for the
previous six months. Based on that controlled buy, on the same day, the ISP
procured and executed a search warrant for Dustrude’s home. The search of
Dustrude’s residence yielded methamphetamine, three hypodermic syringes, a
digital scale, a glass pipe, and cell phones. Dustrude claimed ownership of the
syringes and paraphernalia. After being asked several times, she denied having
any contraband on her person. Dustrude was arrested and transported to jail,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 2 of 12
where she again denied possessing any contraband. A strip search conducted
by a female officer revealed a white object protruding from Dustrude’s vagina.
Dustrude attempted to push the object further into her vaginal canal. Upon
being informed that a search warrant for her body cavities would be procured
and she would be transported to a hospital to have the object removed,
Dustrude tendered the two grams of methamphetamine she had secreted.
[5] On October 12, 2017, Dustrude was released on bond. On October 13, 2017,
the State filed an Information under Cause Number 69C01-1710-F4-18 (Cause
18), charging Dustrude with possession with intent to deal methamphetamine,
dealing in methamphetamine, maintaining a common nuisance, possession of a
hypodermic needle, and possession of paraphernalia. After being released on
bond, Dustrude admitted to an ISP trooper that she continued to deal
methamphetamine but intended to stop. Dustrude also expressed interest in
cooperating with law enforcement as a confidential informant. Law
enforcement resources were expended to develop Dustrude as an informant, but
ultimately she did not perform any of the expected work.
[6] The authorities continued to receive complaints regarding drug activity at
Dustrude’s residence. On July 23, 2018, ISP performed a trash pull at
Dustrude’s residence as part of their ongoing criminal investigation. The trash
pull yielded mail bearing Dustrude’s name as well as a baggie that tested
positive for methamphetamine. ISP procured a second search warrant for
Dustrude’s home which was executed on July 23, 2018. The second search of
Dustrude’s home produced more than one gram of methamphetamine, which
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 3 of 12
was found in Dustrude’s purse, digital scales, a glass pipe containing suspected
methamphetamine residue, a round orange pill identified as Schedule II
controlled substance amphetamine, and six alprazolam pills, a Schedule IV
controlled substance. Dustrude was interviewed and admitted that she used
and sold methamphetamine. Dustrude also identified three people to whom
she had sold methamphetamine in Sunman during the previous week.
[7] Three other individuals, Austin Eckstein, Atlanta Young, and Dustrude’s son,
Dominic, were present at the time of the execution of the search warrant and
were also arrested on drug-related charges. They were subsequently
interviewed and admitted to having used methamphetamine in Dustrude’s
residence. Eckstein admitted that Dustrude had provided him with
methamphetamine repeatedly. In his interview, Dominic admitted that he
would ask Young for methamphetamine and Young would procure the drugs
from Dustrude for Dominic. Both Eckstein and Dominic had driven Dustrude
to Ohio to procure more methamphetamine, a trip she made nearly daily.
[8] On July 24, 2018, the State filed an Information under Cause Number 69C01-
1807-F5-30 (Cause 30), charging Dustrude with dealing in methamphetamine,
possession of methamphetamine, maintaining a common nuisance, possession
of a controlled substance, and possession of paraphernalia. On October 4,
2018, pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, Dustrude pleaded guilty in
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 4 of 12
Cause 18 to dealing in methamphetamine as a Level 4 felony, 1 maintaining a
common nuisance, and unlawful possession of a syringe charges. Pursuant to
the same agreement, Dustrude pleaded guilty in Cause 30 to the dealing in
methamphetamine charge. According to the terms of the plea agreement, all of
the sentences for the Cause 18 offenses would be served concurrent to each
other but consecutively to the Cause 30 offense, and all other charges pending
against Dustrude in both Causes were to be dismissed by the State.
[9] The presentence investigation report filed in this matter revealed the following.
Dustrude was forty-six years old at the time of sentencing. Dustrude had no
record of criminal convictions prior to the instant offenses. She was
unemployed at the time of the offenses and had last been employed in 2015.
Dustrude reported that she first began consuming methamphetamine, heroin,
and alcohol at the age of forty. Dustrude had discontinued her daily heroin
habit at the age of forty-three but continued to use methamphetamine. She had
never received any treatment for her substance abuse.
[10] On October 4, 2018, the trial court held Dustrude’s sentencing hearing.
Dustrude testified that before being arrested for the Cause 30 offenses, she was
ingesting .4 grams of methamphetamine and drinking a fifth of vodka each day.
Dustrude informed the trial court that, as a result of being in custody awaiting
resolution of her case, she was sober for the first time in six years. Dustrude
1
The Level 4 felony in Cause 18 was originally charged as possession of methamphetamine with intent to
deal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 5 of 12
was attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings in jail. Dustrude stated that she
was ashamed of her conduct and expressed remorse for her actions.
[11] The trial court found as aggravating circumstances that Dustrude was free on
bond in Cause 18 when she committed the Cause 30 offense, which the trial
court found to be significantly aggravating, as it reflected poorly on her
character and was an indication of an increased likelihood that she would re-
offend. The trial court also found that the ongoing nature of Dustrude’s
methamphetamine dealing was an aggravator of substantial weight. In support
of that aggravating circumstance, the trial court found that Dustrude had sold
methamphetamine to a controlled informant; brought two grams of the drug
into the jail with intent to sell, despite being asked multiple times whether she
was concealing anything on her person; upon being released on bond in Cause
18, Dustrude expressed her desire to cease dealing but then dealt
methamphetamine again; and that after her arrest for the Cause 30 offenses, she
admitted to having sold methamphetamine to three other individuals that week.
The trial court found as a moderately mitigating circumstance that Dustrude
had pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility, finding that the cases “would
probably be hard to fight.” (Transcript p. 58). It also found Dustrude’s lack of
prior criminal history to be a mitigator but found that factor’s significance to be
diminished in light of her drug use during the previous six years.
[12] The trial court found that the aggravating circumstances substantially
outweighed the mitigators. In Cause 18, the trial court sentenced Dustrude to
nine years for the dealing in methamphetamine conviction and to two-year
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 6 of 12
terms for each of the other Level 6 felony convictions in that cause, to be served
concurrently to the dealing sentence. The trial court suspended one year from
the sentence imposed in Cause 18. In Cause 30, the trial court sentenced
Dustrude to five years, with two years suspended, and it ordered her to serve
that sentence consecutively to the sentence imposed in Cause 18, for an
aggregate sentence of fourteen years, with three years suspended to probation.
[13] Dustrude now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[14] Dustrude contends that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of
her offenses and her character. “Even when a trial court imposes a sentence
within its discretion, the Indiana Constitution authorizes independent appellate
review and revision of this sentencing decision.” Hoak v. State, 113 N.E.3d
1209, 1209 (Ind. 2019). Thus, we may revise a sentence 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. Id. The principal role of such review is to attempt to leaven the
outliers. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). The defendant
bears the burden to persuade the reviewing court that the sentence imposed is
inappropriate. Robinson v. State, 91 N.E.3d 574, 577 (Ind. 2018).
[15] When assessing the nature of an offense, the advisory sentence is the starting
point that the legislature selected as an appropriate sentence for the particular
crime committed. Perry v. State, 78 N.E.3d 1, 13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 7 of 12
Dustrude pleaded guilty to dealing methamphetamine, a Level 4 felony, and to
dealing methamphetamine, a Level 5 felony. She also pleaded guilty to two
Level 6 felonies for maintaining a common nuisance and unlawful possession
of a syringe. The sentencing range for a Level 4 felony is between two and
twelve years, with the advisory sentence being six years. I.C. § 35-50-2-5.5.
The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is between one and six years, with the
advisory sentence being three years. I.C. § 35-50-2-6(b). Lastly, the sentencing
range for a Level 6 felony is between six months and two and one-half years,
with the advisory sentence being one year. I.C. § 35-50-2-7 (2016). The trial
court sentenced Dustrude to nine years for the Level 4 felony, five years for the
Level 5 felony, and two years for each of the Level 6 felonies. Thus, the trial
court imposed moderately-enhanced sentences for each of the offenses, ordered
the two Level 6 felony sentences to be served concurrently, and suspended a
total of three years from the aggregate sentence of fourteen years.
[16] When reviewing the nature of the offense, we look to the “the details and
circumstances of the commission of the offense and the defendant’s
participation.” Perry, 78 N.E.3d at 13. Dustrude sold methamphetamine to
citizens of Ripley County on an ongoing basis before and after the commission
of the October 10, 2017, offenses. After being charged in Cause 18, she
admittedly continued to deal methamphetamine until she was charged with the
Cause 30 offenses. Thus, as she acknowledges on appeal, there is ample
evidence in the record that she possessed with intent to deal or dealt
methamphetamine on more than the two occasions for which she was
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 8 of 12
convicted. Dustrude’s first interaction with law enforcement occurred when an
ISP trooper spoke with her at her home about the drug activity that was
occurring there. That interaction did not result in any charges for her, and it
should have constituted a warning to Dustrude that she should cease her
involvement with methamphetamine. A similar opportunity was afforded to
her after she was charged with the Cause 18 offenses and discussed with an ISP
trooper the fact that she was still dealing drugs. Dustrude even expressed her
desire to cease dealing, but, again, she did not, which led to her being charged
with the Cause 30 offenses when she was still on conditional release from the
Cause 18 offenses. We find the fact that Dustrude brought two grams of
methamphetamine into jail and fostered the drug use of her own son to be
particularly condemnable.
[17] Dustrude argues that the offenses did not merit the sentences imposed because
she was merely an addict who dealt to support her habit, hers was a small
operation, and she was not earning significant revenue. However, an addict
who escalates to dealing is still inflicting the harm of drug dealing on society
and is assisting others in pursuing their own addiction. In addition, although
Dustrude attempts to minimize the scale of her drug dealing, it was an
operation that involved at least three other people, one of whom was her son.
Accordingly, we find nothing inappropriate regarding the moderately enhanced
sentences imposed by the trial court or the trial court’s imposition of
consecutive sentences.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 9 of 12
[18] In addition, upon reviewing a sentence for inappropriateness, we look to a
defendant’s life and conduct as illustrative of her character. Morris v. State, 114
N.E.3d 531, 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. Dustrude argues that her
lack of criminal record and her guilty plea merit a reduced sentence. We
acknowledge, as did the trial court, that Dustrude led a law-abiding life until the
age of forty, but we also find the significance of her lack of criminal record to be
diminished by the fact that she was using heroin and methamphetamine for six
years prior to her arrest for the Cause 18 offenses, and so was not leading a law-
abiding life despite never being convicted of a crime. See Conley v. State, 972
N.E.2d 864, 874 (Ind. 2012) (holding that the defendant’s lack of formal
criminal history was not a substantial mitigating circumstance in light of his
marijuana use). In addition, while it is true that Dustrude pleaded guilty and
accepted responsibility, given the weight of the evidence in the State’s
possession, the dismissal of the other charges, and the favorable concurrent
sentencing provision of her plea agreement, we find that this was a pragmatic
decision on her part which is not entitled to further consideration for sentencing
than that already accorded to it by the trial court. See Sensback v. State, 720
N.E.2d 1160, 1165 (Ind. 1999) (finding that a guilty plea is not substantially
mitigating if a defendant has received a considerable benefit for his plea); see also
Wells v. State, 836 N.E.2d 475, 479 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (holding that decision
to plead is not entitled to substantial mitigating weight if the evidence against
the defendant is such that his decision to plead guilty is a pragmatic one), trans.
denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 10 of 12
[19] Dustrude also directs our attention to the fact that she has “never received drug
treatment, whether it be inpatient or out-patient, court ordered or not.”
(Appellant’s Br. p. 15). Dustrude argues that she was eligible for home
detention, which would have afforded her the opportunity to receive treatment
for her drug addiction. In support of her argument, Dustrude relies on Hoak v.
State, 113 N.E.3d 1209 (Ind. 2019), in which our supreme court, conducting a
review pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), remanded Hoak’s three-year
sentence for Level 5 felony methamphetamine possession and her four-year
sanction for violating her probation for Class B felony methamphetamine
possession. Id. at 1209. In doing so, the court found it particularly significant
that, despite her many contacts with the criminal justice system due to her drug
addiction, she had never received any court-ordered substance abuse treatment.
Id. On remand, the court ordered the trial court to determine if Hoak was
eligible for community corrections, and if so, to allow her to serve half of her
sentence there so that she could receive substance abuse treatment. Id.
[20] We find Hoak to be distinguishable, as Dustrude pleaded guilty to two Counts
of dealing methamphetamine, as opposed to the simple possession offenses
involved in Hoak. In addition, unlike Hoak, here, the trial court has already
suspended three years from Dustrude’s sentence and ordered her to receive
substance abuse treatment as part of her probation. We also note that at
sentencing, Dustrude reported experiencing success in her sobriety as a result of
her attendance at Narcotics Anonymous, a commendable practice. However,
the deference that we accord the trial court’s sentencing decision will prevail
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 11 of 12
unless it is overcome with compelling evidence of “substantial virtuous traits
and persistent examples of good character.” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111,
122 (Ind. 2015). Having been presented with neither, we find that nothing
about Dustrude’s character renders the sentence imposed by the trial court
inappropriate.
CONCLUSION
[21] Based on the forgoing, we conclude that Dustrude’s fourteen-year sentence,
with three years suspended to probation, is not inappropriate in light of the
nature of her offenses or her character.
[22] Affirmed.
[23] Bailey, J. and Pyle, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-127 | June 26, 2019 Page 12 of 12