Jamie R. Aldred v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Nov 30 2015, 6:33 am
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
John C. Bohdan Gregory F. Zoeller
Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Tyler G. Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jamie R. Aldred, November 30, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
02A03-1503-CR-108
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court.
State of Indiana, The Honorable Frances C. Gull,
Judge.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Cause No. 02D06-1305-FC-144
Barteau, Senior Judge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1503-CR-108 |November 30, 2015 Page 1 of 8
Statement of the Case
1
[1] Jamie R. Aldred pleaded guilty to neglect of a dependent, a Class C felony,
2
and maintaining a common nuisance, a Class D felony. The trial court
allowed her to participate in a drug treatment program through Allen County’s
problem-solving drug court. After Aldred violated the program’s rules, she was
discharged from the program and the court sentenced her to four years. She
appeals her sentence. We affirm.
Issue
[2] Aldred raises one issue: whether her sentence is inappropriate in light of the
nature of the offenses and her character.
Facts and Procedural History 3
[3] On May 8, 2013, officers arrived at Aldred’s house in response to a complaint
about activities in her garage. She lived with her two young children (eighteen
months old and eight weeks old, at that time) and her boyfriend. Aldred told
1
Ind. Code § 35-46-1-4 (2012).
2
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-13 (2001).
3
Indiana Appellate Rule 28(A)(2) states that transcript volumes must be consecutively paginated. The
transcript in this case consists of numerous hearings, mostly status conferences during Aldred’s participation
in the problem-solving court’s drug treatment program. The court reporter prepared twenty-four separate
volumes, one for each hearing, none of which are numbered or consecutively paginated. Most of the
volumes do not exceed ten pages in length. The lack of numbering and consecutive pagination has greatly
hindered appellate review, and the court reporter is advised to comply with the rule in future cases.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1503-CR-108 |November 30, 2015 Page 2 of 8
the officers her boyfriend had the key to the garage, and she could not enter.
She further stated that her house did not have running water.
[4] The officers entered the house with Aldred’s permission. They saw a kitchen
full of dirty, stacked dishes, and dog feces on the floor. They confirmed that the
house lacked running water. Both of Aldred’s children were wearing only
diapers.
[5] There was a visitor in the house, and the officers detained her when she tried to
leave. The officers searched the visitor and found items used to manufacture
and consume methamphetamine, a baggie of methamphetamine, and a baggie
of heroin.
[6] Under further questioning, Aldred admitted that she believed her boyfriend had
been manufacturing methamphetamine in the garage for two months. She
further admitted that she had purchased pseudoephedrine-containing medicine
for her boyfriend and used synthetic cannabinoids three times a day. Officers
obtained a search warrant for the garage and found active methamphetamine
labs. An officer took Aldred’s children to a hospital, where they were treated
for malnutrition.
[7] The State charged Aldred with neglect of a dependent and maintaining a
common nuisance. On June 3, 2013, Aldred pleaded guilty as charged. The
trial court accepted her guilty plea and ordered her to participate in a drug
treatment program under the supervision of Allen County’s problem-solving
drug court. Aldred signed an agreement that set forth the requirements of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1503-CR-108 |November 30, 2015 Page 3 of 8
program. Among other requirements, she agreed to participate in a transitional
living program and to comply with the requirements of the Indiana Department
of Child Services (DCS). The agreement also provided that if Aldred
successfully complied with the court’s program, the felony charges against her
would be dismissed.
[8] Aldred resided at Charis House, a transitional housing provider, during most of
her participation in the drug treatment program. In August 2013, she violated
the House’s rules because her mother, who had been banned from the property,
came to see her, and Aldred lied about it to the House’s staff. Also in August
2013, Aldred’s sobriety sponsor told court staff that Aldred had not complied
with the sponsor’s directives. In September 2013, Aldred missed a court date
on an ordinance violation and a warrant was issued for her arrest. She was
taken into custody immediately after a drug court hearing. Aldred remained in
the program despite these violations.
[9] In October 2014, Aldred graduated from Charis House’s program and got a job
working forty hours per week. She continued to live at Charis House while still
looking for suitable housing. During that period of time, she was sanctioned for
leaving the county without permission.
[10] During a December 8, 2014 hearing, the court told Aldred that Charis House’s
staff and Aldred’s case manager had concerns about her because she had not
been working with her sponsor and had been late picking up her children from
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1503-CR-108 |November 30, 2015 Page 4 of 8
daycare. The court characterized Aldred as “falling apart here just a little bit.”
Dec. 8, 2014 Tr. p. 6.
[11] During Aldred’s participation in the problem-solving court’s drug treatment
program from June 2013 through December 2014, her interaction with her
children gradually increased from supervised visitation twice a week to the
children living with her five days a week at Charis House. On January 9, 2015,
DCS removed the children from her care. Aldred had begun a relationship with
a man who had been convicted of child molestation.
[12] On January 26, 2015, the State filed a petition to terminate Aldred’s
participation in the drug treatment program. The trial court held a hearing the
same day. Aldred admitted that she had violated the terms of the program by
lying to her case manager, by moving out of Charis House without first
obtaining stable housing, and by violating DCS requirements. The court ended
Aldred’s participation in the problem-solving court’s program.
[13] Next, the court sentenced Aldred to serve four years for neglect of a dependent
and one and a half years for maintaining a common nuisance, to be served
concurrently for an aggregate sentence of four years. This appeal followed.
Discussion and Decision
[14] Aldred asks the Court to reduce her sentence to a maximum of two years
executed, noting that she had no prior criminal history and had pleaded guilty.
Article VII, section four of the Indiana Constitution authorizes Indiana’s
appellate courts to review and revise sentences. That authority is carried out
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1503-CR-108 |November 30, 2015 Page 5 of 8
through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which allows an appellate court to revise
a sentence that is otherwise 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.”
[15] The principal role of appellate review under Rule 7(B) is to attempt to leaven
the outliers, not to achieve a perceived “correct” result in each case. Garner v.
State, 7 N.E.3d 1012, 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). Thus, the key question is not
whether another sentence is more appropriate, but whether the sentence
imposed in the instant case is inappropriate. Williams v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1154,
1165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
[16] It is the defendant’s burden to persuade us that the sentence is inappropriate.
Id. Whether a sentence is inappropriate depends upon the culpability of the
defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and many
other factors that are present in a given case. Harman v. State, 4 N.E.3d 209,
219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. We consider not only the aggravators
and mitigators found by the trial court, but also any other factors appearing in
the record. Speer v. State, 995 N.E.2d 1, 13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.
[17] At the time Aldred committed her crimes, the advisory sentence for a Class C
felony was four years, the minimum sentence was two years, and the maximum
sentence was eight years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 (2005). Furthermore, the
advisory sentence for a Class D felony was one and a half years, the minimum
sentence was six months, and the maximum sentence was three years. Ind.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1503-CR-108 |November 30, 2015 Page 6 of 8
Code § 35-50-2-7 (2013). The trial court sentenced her to serve the advisory
sentences for both crimes, concurrently, for an aggregate executed sentence of
four years.
[18] Turning to the nature of the offenses, Aldred admitted that she allowed her
boyfriend to make methamphetamine in her garage. Officers found active
methamphetamine labs in the garage. Also, Aldred allowed visitors in her
house who possessed items used to make methamphetamine, as well as baggies
of methamphetamine and heroin. She admitted that she supported her
boyfriend’s drug manufacturing operation by purchasing medicine that
contained pseudoephedrine.
[19] Aldred’s house posed other dangers to children. The kitchen was filthy, with
stacks of dirty dishes and no running water. There were dog feces on the floor.
Both children were clothed only in diapers and required treatment for
malnutrition.
[20] Turning to the character of the offender, it is true that Aldred has no prior
convictions and pleaded guilty as charged. Her guilty plea is not entitled to
much weight because she received a substantial benefit in exchange for her plea.
Specifically, she was allowed to participate in the problem-solving court’s drug
treatment program, and if she had successfully completed the program, the
felony charges against her would have been dismissed. See Kinkead v. State, 791
N.E.2d 243, 247-48 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (guilty plea not entitled to much
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1503-CR-108 |November 30, 2015 Page 7 of 8
weight when defendant received benefit from pleading guilty and the evidence
against the defendant was strong), trans. denied.
[21] In addition, Aldred’s lack of a criminal record must be balanced against her
admissions that she had allowed her boyfriend to make methamphetamine at
her house for two months and had purchased pseudoephedrine-containing
medicine to support his operation. Finally, despite the opportunities afforded
by the problem-solving court’s drug treatment program, Aldred continued to
place her children at risk by beginning a relationship with a man who had been
convicted of child molestation.
[22] Based on this evidence, Aldred has failed to demonstrate that her four-year
advisory sentence is inappropriate.
Conclusion
[23] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Robb, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1503-CR-108 |November 30, 2015 Page 8 of 8