Ashlie Brooke Neal, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] After pleading guilty to burglary, Ashlie Neal entered a substance abuse treatment program as part of a six-month deferred sentencing agreement. She soon left the program, however, and never contacted the court. Neal ultimately was apprehended and sentenced to four years in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) for the burglary. She appeals that sentence as inappropriate in light of the nature of her offense and character. We affirm but remand for correction of a clerical error in her sentencing order.

Facts

[2] Neal broke into someone else's home, intending to commit theft, but fell asleep before any theft could occur. Police later found Neal, still sleeping inside the home and with methamphetamine in her possession.

[3] The State charged Neal with burglary, a Level 5 felony, and possession of methamphetamine, a Level 6 felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Neal pleaded guilty to the burglary charge, and the methamphetamine charge was dismissed. The trial court then agreed to defer Neal's sentencing for six months so she could enter a residential substance abuse treatment program. Neal was advised that if she left the program without court authorization, she would be transported back to jail.

[4] Just one month into the program, Neal was discharged for noncompliance. She had not taken her required medication and suffered a seizure, after which she refused further treatment and left the facility. Over the following six months, Neal never contacted the court or her probation officer.

[5] Eventually, Neal was taken into custody, and the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing for her burglary conviction. The court found that though Neal accepted responsibility for her crime, she refused to complete treatment, failed to contact the court, and has a substantial criminal history. The trial court sentenced Neal to four years in the DOC but specified that Neal could seek modification of her sentence after her first year of incarceration if she successfully completed a substance abuse treatment program.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Neal appeals her four-year sentence as inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). We disagree and affirm her sentence. We also sua sponte address a clerical error in her sentencing order, which does not otherwise impact our analysis.

I. Neal's Sentence Is Not Inappropriate

[7] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) permits an appellate court to 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.” We give “substantial deference” to the trial court's sentencing decision, attempting only “to leaven the outliers” rather than “achieve a perceived ‘correct’ sentence.” Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014).

[8] In assessing the appropriateness of a sentence, we first look to the statutory range established for that class of offense. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218. Neal was convicted of a Level 5 felony, which has a sentencing range of one to six years and an advisory sentence of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b). Though Neal's four-year sentence is above the advisory, it is below the maximum sentence. We are not persuaded that this sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense or Neal's character.

[9] Though Neal's offense was not violent, her criminal history reflects poorly on her character. See Moss v. State, 13 N.E.3d 440, 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (“Even a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendant's character.”). Neal has been convicted of multiple misdemeanors and five felonies, including forgery, possession of methamphetamine, and conspiracy to commit robbery. See Brattain v. State, 891 N.E.2d 1055, 1058 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (“[T]he significance of previous crimes varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses as they relate to the current offense.”). And throughout this history, Neal twice had her suspended sentences revoked.

[10] Moreover, Neal has already been shown substantial leniency, which she squandered. The trial court deferred her sentencing to allow her to enter a treatment program, but she left shortly after and then evaded the court for six months. Even still, the trial court again offered her an opportunity for treatment: her instant sentence includes a recommendation for Recovery While Incarcerated in the DOC and allows for sentence modification after her successful completion of it or a similar treatment program.

[11] Neal has failed to show that her four-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and her character. We therefore affirm the trial court's sentence.

II. Remand for Correction of Clerical Error

[12] Our review of the record revealed a clerical error in the sentencing order. We address this issue sua sponte and remand for correction.

[13] Neal pleaded guilty to burglary in exchange for the dismissal of the possession of methamphetamine charge. This disposition of charges is memorialized in the plea agreement, the guilty plea order, the pre-sentence investigation report, and the abstract of judgment. It is also confirmed by the trial court's oral sentencing statement. However, at two points in the written sentencing order, the charges are swapped: the order specifies that Neal pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine while the burglary charge was dismissed.

[14] This inconsistency occurred in just two sections of a single document. And later in that same document, the methamphetamine charge is properly listed as dismissed. The rest of the record also correctly captures the disposition of the charges: Neal pleaded guilty to burglary, and the methamphetamine charge was dismissed. We therefore conclude the mistake in the sentencing order constitutes a clerical error, and we remand for correction of the order. See Walker v. State, 932 N.E.2d 733, 739 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (remanding for correction of clerical error in written record of convictions because trial court's intent was unambiguous).

[15] Affirmed and remanded.

Weissmann, Judge.

Judges May and Scheele concur. May, J., and Scheele, J., concur.