MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Feb 07 2020, 10:43 am the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Anthony C. Lawrence Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Marjorie Lawyer-Smith Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Amanda Edwards, February 7, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-1892 v. Appeal from the Henry Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Bob A. Witham, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 33C01-1809-F3-13
Bradford, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1892| February 7, 2020 Page 1 of 7 Case Summary [1] In September of 2018, during a traffic stop, police officers discovered multiple
plastic baggies, a glass smoking pipe, syringes, and two baggies containing
methamphetamine inside Amanda Edwards’s purse. During a subsequent
interview, officers discovered heroin and fentanyl inside a wallet found on
Edwards’s person. In June of 2019, Edwards was convicted of Level 4 felony
methamphetamine dealing, two counts of Level 6 felony narcotic-drug
possession, Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance, Level 6 felony
unlawful possession of a syringe, and Class C misdemeanor paraphernalia
possession. Edwards was sentenced to an aggregate term of ten years of
incarceration. Edwards contends that the trial court erred in its findings of
aggravating and mitigating factors and that her sentence is inappropriate in light
of the nature of her offenses and character. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [2] On September 20, 2018, Edwards was a passenger in a vehicle being driven by
Jeremy Snow, which was stopped by law enforcement after Snow committed
multiple traffic infractions. After being removed from the vehicle, Edwards
admitted that there was methamphetamine inside the vehicle, and a K-9 search
of the vehicle indicated the presence of drugs as well. Upon searching the
vehicle, police officers discovered multiple plastic baggies, a glass smoking pipe,
syringes, and two baggies containing methamphetamine, all of which were
located inside Edwards’s purse. Officers also discovered a small digital scale.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1892| February 7, 2020 Page 2 of 7 During a subsequent police interview, officers discovered heroin and fentanyl
located in Edwards’s wallet.
[3] On September 21, 2018, the State charged Edwards with Level 3 felony
methamphetamine dealing, Level 6 felony cocaine possession, two counts of
Level 6 felony narcotic-drug possession, Level 6 felony maintaining a common
nuisance, Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe, and Class C
misdemeanor paraphernalia possession. In May of 2019, the State amended the
methamphetamine dealing charge to a Level 4 felony and dismissed the cocaine
possession charge. On June 18, 2019, a jury trial was held, after which Edwards
was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Edwards to ten years for
the methamphetamine-dealing conviction, two years for each of the Level 6
felony convictions, and sixty days for the paraphernalia-possession conviction,
all to be served concurrently, for an aggregate sentence of ten years of
incarceration.
Discussion and Decision [4] Edwards contends that (1) the trial court erred in its findings of aggravating and
mitigating factors and (2) her sentence is inappropriate.
I. Sentencing Factors [5] Edwards contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to find her
addiction and its origin to be mitigating factor and by finding the nature and
circumstances of her offenses to be an aggravating factor. “[S]entencing
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1892| February 7, 2020 Page 3 of 7 decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and are reviewed on
appeal only for an abuse of discretion.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490
(Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). “An abuse of
discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts
and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual
deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Id. (internal quotations and citations
omitted).
[6] Regarding mitigating factors, “An allegation that the trial court failed to
identify or find a mitigating factor requires the defendant to establish that the
mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.”
Carter v. State, 711 N.E.2d 835, 838 (Ind. 1999). Edwards claims that her
addiction, which stems from pain caused by an automobile accident, should
have been found to be a mitigating factor. We recognize that substance-abuse
history may be a mitigating factor, however, “when a defendant is aware of a
substance abuse problem but has not taken appropriate steps to treat it, the trial
court does not abuse its discretion by rejecting the addiction as a mitigating
[factor].” Hape v. State, 903 N.E.2d 977, 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied.
Although Edwards admits to being aware of her drug addiction, she refused to
take appropriate steps to treat it. This is clearly demonstrated by (1) the drug-
related charges Edwards acquired in another county while released pending
trial in this matter, and (2) Edwards’s testimony that she started using
methamphetamine in order to stop using heroin and fentanyl. Edwards has
failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in this regard.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1892| February 7, 2020 Page 4 of 7 [7] Regarding aggravating factors, Edwards contends that while it appears that the
trial court found the nature and circumstances of her offenses to be an
aggravating factor in this case, such a finding was improper because the trial
court failed to detail the particular circumstances for enhancement. “A trial
court abuses its discretion during sentencing if the reasons given in the
sentencing statement are improper as a matter of law.” Phipps v. State, 90
N.E.3d 1190, 1197 (Ind. 2018) (internal quotations omitted). “For example,
[w]here a trial court’s reason for imposing a sentence greater than the advisory
sentence includes material elements of the offense, absent something unique
about the circumstances that would justify deviating from the advisory
sentence, that reason is improper as a matter of law.” Id.
[8] Here, the trial court found that “[t]he offenses in this case also are going to be
seen by the Court as an aggravating factor.” Tr. Vol. II p. 158. While we can
understand Edwards’s confusion in determining exactly which circumstances of
the offenses the trial court used to enhance her sentence given the trial court’s
lengthy oral sentencing statement, read as a whole it points to at least two
specific circumstances.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Feb 07 2020, 10:43 am the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Anthony C. Lawrence Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Marjorie Lawyer-Smith Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Amanda Edwards, February 7, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-1892 v. Appeal from the Henry Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Bob A. Witham, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 33C01-1809-F3-13
Bradford, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1892| February 7, 2020 Page 1 of 7 Case Summary [1] In September of 2018, during a traffic stop, police officers discovered multiple
plastic baggies, a glass smoking pipe, syringes, and two baggies containing
methamphetamine inside Amanda Edwards’s purse. During a subsequent
interview, officers discovered heroin and fentanyl inside a wallet found on
Edwards’s person. In June of 2019, Edwards was convicted of Level 4 felony
methamphetamine dealing, two counts of Level 6 felony narcotic-drug
possession, Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance, Level 6 felony
unlawful possession of a syringe, and Class C misdemeanor paraphernalia
possession. Edwards was sentenced to an aggregate term of ten years of
incarceration. Edwards contends that the trial court erred in its findings of
aggravating and mitigating factors and that her sentence is inappropriate in light
of the nature of her offenses and character. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [2] On September 20, 2018, Edwards was a passenger in a vehicle being driven by
Jeremy Snow, which was stopped by law enforcement after Snow committed
multiple traffic infractions. After being removed from the vehicle, Edwards
admitted that there was methamphetamine inside the vehicle, and a K-9 search
of the vehicle indicated the presence of drugs as well. Upon searching the
vehicle, police officers discovered multiple plastic baggies, a glass smoking pipe,
syringes, and two baggies containing methamphetamine, all of which were
located inside Edwards’s purse. Officers also discovered a small digital scale.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1892| February 7, 2020 Page 2 of 7 During a subsequent police interview, officers discovered heroin and fentanyl
located in Edwards’s wallet.
[3] On September 21, 2018, the State charged Edwards with Level 3 felony
methamphetamine dealing, Level 6 felony cocaine possession, two counts of
Level 6 felony narcotic-drug possession, Level 6 felony maintaining a common
nuisance, Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe, and Class C
misdemeanor paraphernalia possession. In May of 2019, the State amended the
methamphetamine dealing charge to a Level 4 felony and dismissed the cocaine
possession charge. On June 18, 2019, a jury trial was held, after which Edwards
was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Edwards to ten years for
the methamphetamine-dealing conviction, two years for each of the Level 6
felony convictions, and sixty days for the paraphernalia-possession conviction,
all to be served concurrently, for an aggregate sentence of ten years of
incarceration.
Discussion and Decision [4] Edwards contends that (1) the trial court erred in its findings of aggravating and
mitigating factors and (2) her sentence is inappropriate.
I. Sentencing Factors [5] Edwards contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to find her
addiction and its origin to be mitigating factor and by finding the nature and
circumstances of her offenses to be an aggravating factor. “[S]entencing
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1892| February 7, 2020 Page 3 of 7 decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and are reviewed on
appeal only for an abuse of discretion.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490
(Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). “An abuse of
discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts
and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual
deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Id. (internal quotations and citations
omitted).
[6] Regarding mitigating factors, “An allegation that the trial court failed to
identify or find a mitigating factor requires the defendant to establish that the
mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.”
Carter v. State, 711 N.E.2d 835, 838 (Ind. 1999). Edwards claims that her
addiction, which stems from pain caused by an automobile accident, should
have been found to be a mitigating factor. We recognize that substance-abuse
history may be a mitigating factor, however, “when a defendant is aware of a
substance abuse problem but has not taken appropriate steps to treat it, the trial
court does not abuse its discretion by rejecting the addiction as a mitigating
[factor].” Hape v. State, 903 N.E.2d 977, 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied.
Although Edwards admits to being aware of her drug addiction, she refused to
take appropriate steps to treat it. This is clearly demonstrated by (1) the drug-
related charges Edwards acquired in another county while released pending
trial in this matter, and (2) Edwards’s testimony that she started using
methamphetamine in order to stop using heroin and fentanyl. Edwards has
failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in this regard.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1892| February 7, 2020 Page 4 of 7 [7] Regarding aggravating factors, Edwards contends that while it appears that the
trial court found the nature and circumstances of her offenses to be an
aggravating factor in this case, such a finding was improper because the trial
court failed to detail the particular circumstances for enhancement. “A trial
court abuses its discretion during sentencing if the reasons given in the
sentencing statement are improper as a matter of law.” Phipps v. State, 90
N.E.3d 1190, 1197 (Ind. 2018) (internal quotations omitted). “For example,
[w]here a trial court’s reason for imposing a sentence greater than the advisory
sentence includes material elements of the offense, absent something unique
about the circumstances that would justify deviating from the advisory
sentence, that reason is improper as a matter of law.” Id.
[8] Here, the trial court found that “[t]he offenses in this case also are going to be
seen by the Court as an aggravating factor.” Tr. Vol. II p. 158. While we can
understand Edwards’s confusion in determining exactly which circumstances of
the offenses the trial court used to enhance her sentence given the trial court’s
lengthy oral sentencing statement, read as a whole it points to at least two
specific circumstances. First, Edwards was on probation when she decided to
commit these offenses. Second, the trial court took issue with the fact that
Edwards was living in Decatur County and bringing drugs into Henry County
to deal. Given these circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court abused its
discretion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1892| February 7, 2020 Page 5 of 7 II. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) [9] Edwards contends that her aggregate ten-year sentence is inappropriate. We
may revise a sentence 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.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B).
“Sentencing is principally a discretionary function in which the trial court’s
judgment should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d
1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008) (internal citations omitted). The defendant bears the
burden of proving that her sentence is inappropriate in light of both the nature
of her offenses and her character. Gil v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1231, 1237 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2013). For her convictions, Edwards faced a maximum penalty of twelve
years for the Level 4 felony, two-and-one-half years for the Level 6 felonies, and
sixty days for the Class C misdemeanor. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5, -7, Ind. Code
§ 35-50-3-4.
[10] The nature of Edwards’s offenses does not support a reduction in her sentence.
Edwards was convicted of Level 4 felony methamphetamine dealing, two
counts of Level 6 felony narcotic-drug possession, Level 6 felony maintaining a
common nuisance, Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe, and Class C
misdemeanor paraphernalia possession, after police officers found plastic
baggies, a glass smoking pipe, syringes, two baggies containing
methamphetamine, a digital scale, heroin, and fentanyl inside of her purse or
wallet. Not only was Edwards on probation when she committed these
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1892| February 7, 2020 Page 6 of 7 offenses, but she was traveling from her home in Decatur County to deal drugs
in Henry County.
[11] Edwards’s character also does not support a reduction in her sentence. At the
time of the instant offenses, Edwards was on probation in Dearborn County
after being convicted of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while
intoxicated. Edwards also committed the instant offenses after having been
released pending charges of theft, driving while suspended, and leaving the
scene of an accident in Decatur County. Moreover, after Edwards was released
pending trial on the offenses in this matter, she was charged with Level 5 felony
methamphetamine possession, Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe,
and Class C misdemeanor paraphernalia possession in Decatur County. This
clearly demonstrates Edwards’s distain for authority and her unwillingness to
conform her behavior to societal norms. Edwards has failed to establish that her
sentence is inappropriate.
[12] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1892| February 7, 2020 Page 7 of 7