FILED Jan 24 2025, 9:02 am
CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court
IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana Madison N. Thomas, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
January 24, 2025
Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-CR-1243
Appeal from the Allen Superior Court
The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos. 02D05-2308-F6-1106 02D05-2309-F6-1166
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1243 | January 24, 2025 Page 1 of 8 Opinion by Senior Judge Shepard Judges Pyle and Foley concur.
Shepard, Senior Judge.
[1] Madison Thomas pleaded guilty to three counts of Level 6 felony drug
possession, divided between two cases. After an unsuccessful stint in a drug
court program, during which Thomas committed a new felony drug possession
offense, the trial court sentenced her to one-and-a-half years. She appeals,
asking the Court to revise her sentence so that she serves some of that time on
probation. The State has not requested that her sentence be increased.
[2] Concluding that sentence revision is not warranted, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [3] In August 2023, the State charged Thomas with one count of Level 6 felony
possession of cocaine or a narcotic drug under Cause Number 02D05-2308-F6-
1106 (“F6-1106”). In September 2023, the State charged Thomas with two
counts of Level 6 felony possession of cocaine or a narcotic drug under Cause
Number 02D05-2309-F6-1166 (“F6-1166”). In both cases, police officers had
found Thomas passed out in a vehicle and discovered controlled substances on
her person. In F6-1166, the officers discovered Thomas had cocaine and
fentanyl.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1243 | January 24, 2025 Page 2 of 8 [4] The trial court released Thomas from jail on bond. In October 2023, the State
petitioned to revoke Thomas’ bond in both cases, alleging she had violated the
terms of her pretrial release. The court revoked her bond, and she was arrested.
[5] In February 2024, Thomas pleaded guilty as charged in both cases and was
placed in a drug court diversion program. Among other conditions, she agreed
to refrain from possessing controlled substances. She also acknowledged that if
she were removed from the program, the trial court could conduct a sentencing
hearing on the three offenses.
[6] Shortly after Thomas entered the program, the drug court determined Thomas
had violated the terms of her placement and sentenced her to a short period of
incarceration as a sanction. In April 2024, the State moved to terminate
Thomas’ placement in the program, alleging she had been unsuccessfully
discharged from a residential treatment facility after leaving without
permission. Thomas admitted the State’s allegations were true, and the drug
court removed her from the program. Officers took Thomas to jail, where they
discovered she was carrying fentanyl. The State filed another case against
Thomas for the new possession offense, also a Level 6 felony, under Cause
Number 02D04-2403-F6-343 (“F6-343”).
[7] The trial court held a guilty plea and sentencing hearing for F6-343 and a
sentencing hearing for F6-1106 and F6-1166 on the same day. In F6-1106 and
F6-1166, the trial court imposed a total sentence of one and one-half years, to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1243 | January 24, 2025 Page 3 of 8 1 be served consecutively with the sentence in F6-343. Thomas’ appeals from
the judgments in F6-1106 and F6-1166 were consolidated in this case.
Discussion and Decision [8] Thomas asks the Court to revise her sentence to serve a portion on probation.
Article 7, section 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorizes the Court to review
sentences. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) implements this authority, stating the
Court 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.”
[9] Sentencing review under Appellate Rule 7(B) is deferential to the trial court’s
decision, and “we avoid merely substituting our judgment” for that of the trial
court. Nicholson v. State, 221 N.E.3d 680, 684 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied.
Instead, the main purpose of review under Appellate Rule 7(B) is to “leaven the
outliers.” Robinson v. State, 91 N.E.3d 574, 577 (Ind. 2018). “[W]e may look to
any factors appearing in the record” in our review. Boling v. State, 982 N.E.2d
1055, 1060 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Thomas bears the burden of persuading us
that her sentence is inappropriate. Zamilpa v. State, 229 N.E.3d 1079, 1089 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2024).
1 F6-343 is not part of this appeal, but in that case, Thomas received a sentence of one and one-half years, with one year suspended to probation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1243 | January 24, 2025 Page 4 of 8 [10] When a defendant requests appellate review and revision of a sentence under
Rule 7(B), “the reviewing court is presented with the issue of whether to affirm,
reduce, or increase the sentence.” McCullough v. State, 900 N.E.2d 745, 750
(Ind. 2009).
[11] Thus, a defendant raising a Rule 7(B) claim “faces the prospect of a more severe
sentence on appeal than what the trial court imposed.” Wadle v. State, 151
N.E.3d 227, 253 (Ind. 2020). The State may present reasons supporting an
increase in the sentence only if the defendant first presents a Rule 7(B) claim.
McCullough, 900 N.E.2d at 751. In any event, “we reserve our 7(B) authority
for exceptional cases.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 160 (Ind. 2019).
[12] When Thomas committed her offenses, the advisory sentence for a Level 6
felony was one year, with a maximum sentence of two and one-half years and a
minimum sentence of six months. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b) (2019). The trial
court sentenced Thomas to one and one-half years in each case, to be served
concurrently. Her sentence is far less than the maximum of seven and one-half
years for the three offenses.
[13] “Our analysis of the ‘nature of the offense’ requires us to look at the nature,
extent, heinousness, and brutality of the offense.” Pritcher v. State, 208 N.E.3d
656, 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). Thomas argues her offenses were nonviolent,
but the absence of violence is already factored into the level of the offenses. If
she had also committed violent offenses, the State presumably would have
charged her accordingly. In any event, it reflects poorly on Thomas that she
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1243 | January 24, 2025 Page 5 of 8 committed her offenses within a two-week span and was not deterred by an
intervening arrest.
[14] “Our analysis of the character of the offender involves a broad consideration of
a defendant’s qualities, including the defendant’s age, criminal history,
background, past rehabilitative efforts, and remorse.” Id. at 668. Thomas was
twenty-eight years old at sentencing. Her formal criminal history is minor,
consisting of a 2015 conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED Jan 24 2025, 9:02 am
CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court
IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana Madison N. Thomas, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
January 24, 2025
Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-CR-1243
Appeal from the Allen Superior Court
The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos. 02D05-2308-F6-1106 02D05-2309-F6-1166
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1243 | January 24, 2025 Page 1 of 8 Opinion by Senior Judge Shepard Judges Pyle and Foley concur.
Shepard, Senior Judge.
[1] Madison Thomas pleaded guilty to three counts of Level 6 felony drug
possession, divided between two cases. After an unsuccessful stint in a drug
court program, during which Thomas committed a new felony drug possession
offense, the trial court sentenced her to one-and-a-half years. She appeals,
asking the Court to revise her sentence so that she serves some of that time on
probation. The State has not requested that her sentence be increased.
[2] Concluding that sentence revision is not warranted, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [3] In August 2023, the State charged Thomas with one count of Level 6 felony
possession of cocaine or a narcotic drug under Cause Number 02D05-2308-F6-
1106 (“F6-1106”). In September 2023, the State charged Thomas with two
counts of Level 6 felony possession of cocaine or a narcotic drug under Cause
Number 02D05-2309-F6-1166 (“F6-1166”). In both cases, police officers had
found Thomas passed out in a vehicle and discovered controlled substances on
her person. In F6-1166, the officers discovered Thomas had cocaine and
fentanyl.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1243 | January 24, 2025 Page 2 of 8 [4] The trial court released Thomas from jail on bond. In October 2023, the State
petitioned to revoke Thomas’ bond in both cases, alleging she had violated the
terms of her pretrial release. The court revoked her bond, and she was arrested.
[5] In February 2024, Thomas pleaded guilty as charged in both cases and was
placed in a drug court diversion program. Among other conditions, she agreed
to refrain from possessing controlled substances. She also acknowledged that if
she were removed from the program, the trial court could conduct a sentencing
hearing on the three offenses.
[6] Shortly after Thomas entered the program, the drug court determined Thomas
had violated the terms of her placement and sentenced her to a short period of
incarceration as a sanction. In April 2024, the State moved to terminate
Thomas’ placement in the program, alleging she had been unsuccessfully
discharged from a residential treatment facility after leaving without
permission. Thomas admitted the State’s allegations were true, and the drug
court removed her from the program. Officers took Thomas to jail, where they
discovered she was carrying fentanyl. The State filed another case against
Thomas for the new possession offense, also a Level 6 felony, under Cause
Number 02D04-2403-F6-343 (“F6-343”).
[7] The trial court held a guilty plea and sentencing hearing for F6-343 and a
sentencing hearing for F6-1106 and F6-1166 on the same day. In F6-1106 and
F6-1166, the trial court imposed a total sentence of one and one-half years, to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1243 | January 24, 2025 Page 3 of 8 1 be served consecutively with the sentence in F6-343. Thomas’ appeals from
the judgments in F6-1106 and F6-1166 were consolidated in this case.
Discussion and Decision [8] Thomas asks the Court to revise her sentence to serve a portion on probation.
Article 7, section 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorizes the Court to review
sentences. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) implements this authority, stating the
Court 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.”
[9] Sentencing review under Appellate Rule 7(B) is deferential to the trial court’s
decision, and “we avoid merely substituting our judgment” for that of the trial
court. Nicholson v. State, 221 N.E.3d 680, 684 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied.
Instead, the main purpose of review under Appellate Rule 7(B) is to “leaven the
outliers.” Robinson v. State, 91 N.E.3d 574, 577 (Ind. 2018). “[W]e may look to
any factors appearing in the record” in our review. Boling v. State, 982 N.E.2d
1055, 1060 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Thomas bears the burden of persuading us
that her sentence is inappropriate. Zamilpa v. State, 229 N.E.3d 1079, 1089 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2024).
1 F6-343 is not part of this appeal, but in that case, Thomas received a sentence of one and one-half years, with one year suspended to probation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1243 | January 24, 2025 Page 4 of 8 [10] When a defendant requests appellate review and revision of a sentence under
Rule 7(B), “the reviewing court is presented with the issue of whether to affirm,
reduce, or increase the sentence.” McCullough v. State, 900 N.E.2d 745, 750
(Ind. 2009).
[11] Thus, a defendant raising a Rule 7(B) claim “faces the prospect of a more severe
sentence on appeal than what the trial court imposed.” Wadle v. State, 151
N.E.3d 227, 253 (Ind. 2020). The State may present reasons supporting an
increase in the sentence only if the defendant first presents a Rule 7(B) claim.
McCullough, 900 N.E.2d at 751. In any event, “we reserve our 7(B) authority
for exceptional cases.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 160 (Ind. 2019).
[12] When Thomas committed her offenses, the advisory sentence for a Level 6
felony was one year, with a maximum sentence of two and one-half years and a
minimum sentence of six months. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b) (2019). The trial
court sentenced Thomas to one and one-half years in each case, to be served
concurrently. Her sentence is far less than the maximum of seven and one-half
years for the three offenses.
[13] “Our analysis of the ‘nature of the offense’ requires us to look at the nature,
extent, heinousness, and brutality of the offense.” Pritcher v. State, 208 N.E.3d
656, 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). Thomas argues her offenses were nonviolent,
but the absence of violence is already factored into the level of the offenses. If
she had also committed violent offenses, the State presumably would have
charged her accordingly. In any event, it reflects poorly on Thomas that she
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1243 | January 24, 2025 Page 5 of 8 committed her offenses within a two-week span and was not deterred by an
intervening arrest.
[14] “Our analysis of the character of the offender involves a broad consideration of
a defendant’s qualities, including the defendant’s age, criminal history,
background, past rehabilitative efforts, and remorse.” Id. at 668. Thomas was
twenty-eight years old at sentencing. Her formal criminal history is minor,
consisting of a 2015 conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law
enforcement and a 2015 conviction, in a separate case, of Class B misdemeanor
leaving the scene of an accident. But she has an extensive uncharged history of
using controlled substances, including using cocaine weekly for almost a decade
and consuming Percocet and fentanyl regularly for several years.
[15] Thomas has rejected numerous opportunities to reform and has not put to good
use the alternatives to incarceration. The trial court revoked her bond when she
violated the terms of her pretrial release. Thomas then violated the terms of the
drug court program, for which she was sanctioned with jail time, before being
removed from the program for a second violation. She then committed a fourth
possession offense. These shortcomings indicate Thomas would be unlikely to
do well on probation and perhaps would more likely correct her behavior after a
period of incarceration.
[16] Thomas argues she is finally willing to address her severe substance addiction
and expressed remorse for her misconduct at sentencing. The trial court
determined Thomas’ guilty plea and expressions of remorse were mitigating
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1243 | January 24, 2025 Page 6 of 8 factors. But the court gave little weight to those factors, as well as Thomas’
alleged readiness to seek treatment, stating as follows:
You know, you came into Drug Court, Ms. Thomas, and I think the only reason you came into Drug Court was to get out of jail, because you had a track record in both of your Drug Court cases of failing to appear to Pre-Trial Services, they ended up filing a notice, a warrant was issued for your arrest, your bond was revoked in both of your cases, and then your option was Drug Court; and I think it was an option that you selected very intentionally to just get out of jail and go on about doing the things you want to do. I don’t think you’re genuine [sic] in recovery, Ms. Thomas. You’ve been faking it this entire time and everybody else is working harder on your recovery than you are.
Tr. Vol. 2, p. 26. We defer to the sentencing court’s assessment of a defendant’s
sincerity. See Hollins v. State, 145 N.E.3d 847, 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020)
(evaluation of defendant’s credibility is “better left to the trial court judge, who
views and hears the defendant’s apology and demeanor first-hand”), trans.
denied. Thomas has failed to demonstrate this is one of the exceptional cases in
which we should exercise our power to revise sentences.
Conclusion [17] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
[18] Affirmed.
Pyle, J., and Foley, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1243 | January 24, 2025 Page 7 of 8 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Donald J. Frew Fort Wayne, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana
Sierra A. Murray Deputy Attorney General
Maya L. Stirm Certified Legal Intern Indianapolis, Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1243 | January 24, 2025 Page 8 of 8