Amanda Lynn Ballenger, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Amanda Lynn Ballenger (“Ballenger”) appeals, following a guilty plea, the two-year sentence imposed for her Level 6 felony theft conviction.¹ Ballenger argues that her sentence is inappropriate. Concluding that her sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether Ballenger's sentence is inappropriate.

Facts 2

[3] In May 2024, Ballenger, while shopping at a Walmart, attempted to take twenty-four items valued at approximately $256.05. Ballenger did not pay for these items, which included food and makeup products. When an officer arrived on the scene and questioned Ballenger, she told the officer that she had accidentally failed to scan the items at checkout. Ballenger then told the officer that she had intentionally failed to scan the items before again claiming that she had mistakenly failed to scan the items. The officer arrested Ballenger and found a “xanax bar” on her person. (App. Vol. 2 at 16).

[4] The State charged Ballenger with Level 6 felony theft and Class A misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance. Ballenger entered into a plea agreement with the State. Pursuant to the agreement, Ballenger pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony theft, and in exchange, the State dismissed the Class A misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance charge. The agreement further provided that sentencing would be left to the trial court's discretion and that the sentence would run consecutively to the sentence in another case not relevant to this appeal.

[5] At a December 2024 hearing, the trial court accepted the plea agreement. The trial court entered a judgment of conviction for Ballenger's Level 6 felony theft charge, and the State dismissed the Class A misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance charge. Ballenger testified at the hearing and told the trial court that, while at the county jail, she had “completed the M.R.T. program.”³ (Tr. Vol. 2 at 11). Ballenger testified that, during the program, she had learned how to hold herself accountable, to stop blaming others for her mistakes, and to stop lying to herself and others. Ballenger further testified that she “[a]bsolutely” took ownership of the theft and her addiction to drugs and alcohol. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 11). Then forty-eight-year-old Ballenger testified that she was “not getting any younger[ ]” and that she had “lost a lot” due to her “drug and alcohol addiction[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 12). Ballenger also told the trial court that she was the reason that she kept losing people and things in her life and that she did not want to do that anymore.

[6] Ballenger asked the trial court to impose a two-and-one-half year sentence and to suspend that sentence to probation. The State noted that it did not believe that Ballenger was a good candidate for probation given her history of violating probation. The trial court, after reviewing the presentence investigation report (“PSI”), found that Ballenger's criminal history was an aggravating circumstance. Specifically, the trial court noted that Ballenger's criminal history included multiple felony and misdemeanor convictions. The PSI revealed that Ballenger has four prior felony convictions, including a 2018 domestic battery conviction and multiple possession of methamphetamine convictions. The PSI also revealed that Ballenger has seven prior misdemeanor convictions. The trial court also found that Ballenger had committed the offense in this case while on probation and that she had had her probation revoked “at least four times[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 19). The trial court found, as mitigating circumstances, that Ballenger had pleaded guilty and that she had completed the M.R.T. program. The trial court sentenced Ballenger to two (2) years in the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”) for her Level 6 felony theft conviction.

[7] Ballenger now appeals.

Decision

[8] Ballenger argues that her sentence is inappropriate. We may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). The defendant has the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). The principal role of a Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived correct result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on “the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224. “Appellate Rule 7(B) analysis is not to determine whether another sentence is more appropriate but rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), reh'g denied.

[9] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge that the advisory sentence “is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. A person who commits a Level 6 felony “shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between six (6) months and two and one-half (21/212) years, with the advisory sentence being one (1) year[.]” Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). Here, Ballenger pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony theft, and the trial court sentenced her to a two-year sentence, all of which was to be served at the DOC. This is less than the maximum sentence permitted by statute.

[10] Turning first to the nature of the offense, Ballenger attempted to take from a Walmart, without paying, twenty-four items valued at $256.05. These items included food and makeup products. Ballenger initially asserted that she had mistakenly failed to scan the items but then admitted to intentionally failing to scan the items at checkout.

[11] Turning to Ballenger's character, we note that “[a] defendant's life and conduct are illustrative of his or her character.” Morris v. State, 114 N.E.3d 531, 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. The PSI revealed that Ballenger has a significant criminal history. Ballenger has four prior felony convictions, including a domestic battery conviction and multiple possession of methamphetamine convictions. Additionally, Ballenger has seven prior misdemeanor convictions. Such criminal history reflects poorly on Ballenger's character. See Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (explaining that any criminal history reflects poorly on a person's character). Ballenger also committed the offense in this case while on probation in another case. Further, Ballenger has had her probation revoked multiple times. It is clear that Ballinger has not responded well to previous attempts to rehabilitate her behavior.

[12] Ballenger has not persuaded this Court that her two-year sentence for her Level 6 felony theft conviction is inappropriate. Therefore, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2.

3.   M.R.T. is an acronym for moral reconation therapy.

Pyle, Judge.

Chief Judge Altice and Judge DeBoer concur. Altice, C.J., and DeBoer, J., concur.