Jennifer J. Pearson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Feb 29 2016, 9:38 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
Chris M. Teagle Gregory F. Zoeller
Muncie, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Paula J. Beller
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jennifer J. Pearson, February 29, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
05A02-1507-CR-878
v. Appeal from the Blackford
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Dean A. Young,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
05C01-1501-F5-26
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 05A02-1507-CR-878 | February 29, 2016 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Jennifer Pearson appeals the two and one-half year sentence imposed for
possession of chemical reagents or precursors with intent to manufacture a
controlled substance, a Level 6 felony. We affirm.
Issue
[2] Pearson raises one issue, which we restate as whether her sentence is
inappropriate.
Facts
[3] On January 20, 2015, officers from the Hartford City Police Department
executed a search warrant at Pearson’s residence. They discovered four blister
packs of pseudoephedrine and containers of solvents, Coleman fuel, sulfuric
acid, and an HCL generator. They also discovered drug paraphernalia,
including hypodermic needles and a digital scale with white residue on it.
Pearson advised the officers she had a container of drugs, which another
individual present at the residence identified as methamphetamine, in her
pocket. Pearson told officers she purchased the pseudoephedrine at Walgreens
and that, “every time that she has bought a box of pseudoephedrine it was used
for [her husband] to cook meth.” App. p. 72. Finally, Pearson said she
planned to sell the methamphetamine so she could purchase heroin.
[4] On January 22, 2015, the State charged Pearson with: (I) aiding inducing, or
causing dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 5 felony; (II) possession of
methamphetamine, a Level 6 felony; (III) possession of chemical reagents or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 05A02-1507-CR-878 | February 29, 2016 Page 2 of 5
precursors with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, a Level 6 felony;
(IV) maintaining a common nuisance, a Level 6 felony; and (V) possession of
paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. On June 1, 2015, Pearson pled guilty
to Count III, possession of chemical reagents or precursors with intent to
manufacture a controlled substance, a Level 6 felony. The State dismissed the
remaining charges. The length and terms of Pearson’s sentence were left to the
trial court’s discretion. On June 22, 2015, the trial court sentenced Pearson.
Citing her criminal history, the fact Pearson was on probation at the time she
committed the offense, and her failure to avail herself of opportunities for
rehabilitation, it ordered her to serve two and one-half years executed in the
Department of Correction. Pearson now appeals.
Analysis
[5] Pearson argues that the maximum, executed sentence the trial court imposed is
inappropriate and should be revised. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) allows us to
revise an appellant’s sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of
the trial court’s decision, we find that sentence is inappropriate in light of the
nature of the offense and character of the offender. We must give the trial
court’s decision due consideration because we “understand and recognize the
unique perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.” Rutherford v.
State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “The principal role of
appellate review should be to attempt to leaven the outliers . . . but not to
achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d
1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). An appellant bears the burden of persuading us her
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 05A02-1507-CR-878 | February 29, 2016 Page 3 of 5
sentence is inappropriate. Id. (citing Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind.
2006)).
[6] Regarding the nature of the offense, Pearson purchased the pseudoephedrine
necessary to manufacture methamphetamine and indicated she had done so
previously: “every time that she has bought a box of pseudoephedrine it was
used for [her husband] to cook meth.” App. p. 72. This was not the first
occasion on which Pearson was involved in the manufacturing of
methamphetamine.
[7] Regarding her character, Pearson, who was thirty years old at the time she
committed this offense, has a criminal history beginning when she was nineteen
years old. She has convictions for three misdemeanors and three felonies.
Pearson was on probation at the time she committed this offense, and she
previously had her probation revoked. Pearson argues it is laudable that she
wants to seek treatment for her substance addiction; however, that desire does
not negate her participation in criminal activity that is increasingly serious or
her seeming inability to avoid criminal activity when given the opportunity to
serve a suspended sentence. Neither the nature of the offense nor Pearson’s
character compels a revision of her sentence.
Conclusion
[8] Pearson’s sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and
her character. We affirm.
[9] Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 05A02-1507-CR-878 | February 29, 2016 Page 4 of 5
Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 05A02-1507-CR-878 | February 29, 2016 Page 5 of 5