Jennifer L. Buchanan v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 28, 2015
• Docket: 70A04-1501-CR-25
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Apr 28 2015, 9:16 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 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Chris Palmer Frazier Gregory F. Zoeller Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Jesse R. Drum Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jennifer L. Buchanan, April 28, 2015

Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 70A04-1501-CR-25 v. Appeal from the Rush Circuit Court The Honorable Brian D. Hill, Judge Cause No. 70D01-1404-FA-148 State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff

Bailey, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A04-1501-CR-25 | April 28, 2015 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] Jennifer Buchanan (“Buchanan”) pled guilty to Possession of a Controlled

Substance, as a Class C felony,1 and was sentenced to eight years

imprisonment, with six years executed in the Department of Correction and

two years to be served on home detention. She now appeals, and raises for our

review only the issue of whether her sentence was inappropriate under

Appellate Rule 7(B).

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] Within the course of several controlled purchases of narcotics, police learned

that on November 6, 2013, Buchanan had in her possession hydrocodone pills

for which she lacked a valid prescription. At the time, Buchanan was within

1000 feet of a family housing complex.

[4] On April 1, 2014, Buchanan was charged with two counts of Dealing in

Methamphetamine, as Class A felonies;2 two counts of Possession of

Methamphetamine, as Class B felonies;3 Dealing in a Controlled Substance, as

1 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-7(a)(2) (West 2013). Buchanan’s offenses were committed before the July 1, 2014, effective date of substantial revisions to Indiana’s criminal code. We refer throughout to the substantive provisions of the statutes in effect at the time of her offenses. 2 I.C. §§ 35-48-4-1.1(a)(1)(C) & (b)(3)(B). 3 I.C. § 35-48-4-6.1(a)(2)(B).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A04-1501-CR-25 | April 28, 2015 Page 2 of 6 a Class A felony;4 and Possession of a Controlled Substance. A warrant for

Buchanan’s arrest was issued on April 2, 2014, subsequent to which Buchanan

was taken into custody.

[5] On December 8, 2014, Buchanan and the State entered into a plea agreement.

Under the terms of the agreement, Buchanan agreed to enter a guilty plea to a

single charge of Possession of a Controlled Substance, as a Class C felony. The

State agreed that all sentencing matters would be left to the trial court’s

discretion. The State further agreed to dismiss all the other charges in the case.

[6] On December 22, 2014, a change of plea hearing was conducted, at which time

the trial court accepted the plea agreement and entered judgment of conviction.

A presentencing investigation report had already been completed, and after

argument of counsel the trial court sentenced Buchanan to eight years

imprisonment, with six years executed in the Department of Correction and

two years to be served on home detention.

[7] This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [8] On appeal, Buchanan contends that the sentence imposed by the trial court was

inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B).

4 I.C. § 35-48-4-2(b)(2).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A04-1501-CR-25 | April 28, 2015 Page 3 of 6 [9] The authority granted to this Court by Article 7, § 6 of the Indiana Constitution

permitting appellate review and revision of criminal sentences is implemented

through 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 offense and the character of the offender.” Under this rule, and as

interpreted by case law, appellate courts may revise sentences after due

consideration of the trial court’s decision, if the sentence is found to be

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the

offender. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222-25 (Ind. 2008); Serino v. State,

798 N.E.2d 852, 856-57 (Ind. 2003). The principal role of such review is to

attempt to leaven the outliers. Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225.

[10] Here, Buchanan was convicted of Possession of a Controlled Substance, as a

Class C felony. She faced a sentencing range running from two to eight years

imprisonment, with an advisory term of four years. I.C. § 35-50-2-6(a). The

trial court sentenced her to the maximum term of eight years, with six years to

be served in the Department of Correction and two years to be served on home

detention with Rush County Community Corrections.

[11] Turning first to the nature of Buchanan’s offense, police obtained hydrocodone

pills that had been in Buchanan’s possession through a confidential informant’s

purchase of the pills in a controlled buy. This was one of three such

transactions in which Buchanan was reported to have been involved; some of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A04-1501-CR-25 | April 28, 2015 Page 4 of 6 these transactions appear to have occurred at Buchanan’s home, the residence

of her minor children.

[12] With respect to Buchanan’s character, we note that she entered a guilty plea.

However, Buchanan also received a very substantial benefit from her plea: the

dismissal of five charges in this case, each of which carried longer potential

terms of imprisonment from the single charge to which she pleaded guilty.

[13] Further, our review of the record reveals that Buchanan has a long history of

substance abuse and other criminal behavior. Buchanan has been convicted on

two separate occasions of Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated; one of these

resulted in serious bodily injury, and was a felony-level offense. Buchanan has

also been convicted of Battery, Domestic Battery, and Resisting Law

Enforcement, as Class A misdemeanors, and Public Intoxication endangering a

person’s life, as a Class B misdemeanor. Buchanan was serving a portion of her

sentence for her most recent conviction for Operating While Intoxicated when

she committed the offense at issue in this case, and as a result violated the terms

of her home detention program.

[14] After her arrest, Buchanan sought substance abuse treatment within two

months of her guilty plea and sentencing hearing—several months after her

arrest in the instant case. However, Buchanan suffers from mental health issues

which, by her own choice, have gone untreated. After attempting suicide in

December 2014, she declined further counseling. Though Buchanan

acknowledged at sentencing the need for treatment, she took no action to seek

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A04-1501-CR-25 | April 28, 2015 Page 5 of 6 such treatment before that point. In sum, then, Buchanan has committed

numerous prior offenses and has had numerous prior substance abuse issues,

but has not availed herself of rehabilitation opportunities when they were

previously offered.

[15] Finally, Buchanan is a parent of three children, two of whom were in her care

at the time of her offense. Buchanan argues that the long duration of her

sentence will preclude her from parenting these children. We observe,

however, that these children were taken into foster care as a result of the instant

offense.

[16] In light of the nature of Buchanan’s offense, her character, and the substantial

benefit she received as a result of her guilty plea, we cannot conclude that

Buchanan’s sentence of eight years imprisonment, with six years executed in

the Department of Correction and two years to be served on home detention, is

inappropriate.

[17] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Barnes, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A04-1501-CR-25 | April 28, 2015 Page 6 of 6