Amber D. Courtney v. State of Indiana

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:
JACOB R. TAULMAN GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Kentland, Indiana
MICHAEL GENE WORDEN
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
FILED
Feb 06 2013, 9:26 am
IN THE
CLERK
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
AMBER D. COURTNEY, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 56A03-1206-CR-282
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE NEWTON SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Daniel J. Molter, Judge
Cause No. 56D01-1103-FB-1
February 6, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
KIRSCH, Judge
Following her guilty plea to possession of a narcotic drug, a Class B felony,
because it occurred within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex, 1 Amber D. Courtney
appeals her sentence claiming that it is inappropriate in light of the nature of her offense
and her character.
We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In March of 2012, the Jasper County Probation Department received information
that Courtney, who was then on probation, was in possession of illegal drugs. The
department conducted a check of her residence, and Courtney produced heroin and a
hypodermic needle that she used to inject it and admitted that the heroin belonged to her.
Courtney was charged with possession of a narcotic drug and with being an
habitual offender. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Courtney pleaded guilty to the
possession charge, and the State dismissed the habitual offender enhancement. The trial
court sentenced Courtney to fourteen years with ten years executed in the Indiana
Department of Correction (“DOC”) and four years suspended to probation. Courtney
now appeals.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Courtney contends that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of her
offense and her character under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides, “The Court
may revise a 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
1
See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.
2
offense and the character of the offender.” “Although appellate review of sentences must
give due consideration to the trial court’s sentence because of the special expertise of the
trial bench in making sentencing decisions, the rule is an authorization to revise sentences
when certain broad conditions are satisfied.” Purvis v. State, 829 N.E.2d 572, 587 (Ind.
Ct. App 2005), trans. denied, cert. denied 547 U.S. 1026 (2006). The defendant has the
burden of persuading us that her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d
1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
Here, although there is nothing particularly egregious about the nature of the
offense, Courtney’s character proves otherwise. She has prior convictions, including
operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, reckless driving, and possession of a
controlled substance. In addition, she was found to have violated her probation on a prior
occasion and was on probation when she committed her current crime. The trial court’s
grants of leniency and repeated attempts to effect rehabilitation through probation have
not been successful. Courtney has failed to carry her burden of persuading this Court that
her sentence is inappropriate.
Affirmed.
MATHIAS, J., and CRONE, J., concur.
3