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

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 29, 2016
• Docket: 05A02-1507-CR-878
• Status: Published

Opinion

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