NEYHART v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Halston Neyhart (“Neyhart”) appeals the four-year sentence imposed after she pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony possession of cocaine.¹ Neyhart specifically argues that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing her and that her sentence is inappropriate. Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Neyhart and that her sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Neyhart.

2. Whether Neyhart's sentence is inappropriate.

Facts

[3] In December 2021, the State charged Neyhart with Level 5 felony possession of cocaine, Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe, and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. In January 2022, the trial court authorized Neyhart to post a cash bond and released her to LaPorte County Community Corrections. As a condition of her pretrial release, Neyhart agreed that she would follow Community Corrections’ rules.

[4] In June 2022, the State filed a petition to revoke Neyhart's bond. In its petition, the State alleged that Neyhart had violated Community Corrections’ rules by failing to: (1) properly charge her GPS bracelet; (2) attend eight appointments in the previous six weeks; (3) obtain a job; and (4) pay for her GPS bracelet. Moreover, the State explained that Neyhart was “not taking this program seriously ․ and just want[ed] to do her own thing.” (App. Vol. 2 at 43). The trial court revoked Neyhart's pretrial release and issued a warrant for her arrest. Following an August 2022 hearing, the trial court recalled the arrest warrant, released Neyhart, and ordered her to report to the probation department for bond supervision.

[5] One month later, in September 2022, Neyhart tested positive for cocaine. Also, in September 2022, the State charged Neyhart in LaPorte County with Level 6 felony domestic battery and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. In October 2022, the State charged Neyhart in Porter County with Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended. Also, in October 2022, the State filed a petition to revoke Neyhart's pretrial release based on her positive drug test for cocaine. The trial court ordered Neyhart to appear in court on November 4, 2022. However, Neyhart failed to appear, and the trial court rescheduled the hearing until December 2, 2022.

[6] At the end of November 2022, the State charged Neyhart in LaPorte County with Class C misdemeanor refusal to identify herself. Neyhart failed to attend the December 2, 2022 hearing on the State's petition to revoke her pretrial release, and the trial court issued a bench warrant. Also, in December 2022, the State filed another motion to revoke Neyhart's pretrial release based on the November 2022 charge for refusing to identify herself. The trial court revoked Neyhart's pretrial release the following day and issued a second warrant for her arrest. Two days later, Neyhart was arrested. Following a hearing, the trial court placed her on pretrial release under the supervision of the LaPorte County Probation Department.

[7] In May 2023, the State charged Neyhart in St. Joseph County with two counts of Level 6 felony unlawful possession or use of a legend drug, Level 6 felony identity deception, and Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended. In March 2024, the State charged Neyhart in Porter County with Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended.

[8] On March 8, 2024, Neyhart and the State entered into a plea agreement in the case that is the subject of this appeal. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, Neyhard agreed to plead guilty to Level 5 felony possession of cocaine, and the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges for Level 6 felony possession of a syringe and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Also, pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, sentencing was left to the trial court's discretion.

[9] The trial court held a guilty plea hearing that same day. Neyhart provided a factual basis for the charge by testifying that, while at a gas station, she had possessed more than five grams and less than ten grams of cocaine.

[10] Three weeks later, in March 2024, Neyhart was charged with another offense. Specifically, the State charged Neyhart in LaPorte County with Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended.

[11] The trial court held a sentencing hearing in September 2024. Thirty-four-year-old Neyhart's presentence investigation report (“the PSI”) revealed that she has a fourteen-year adult criminal history that includes three felony convictions and four misdemeanor convictions. Specifically, before committing the offense in this case, Neyhart had a felony conviction for Class C felony possession of a narcotic drug. After committing the offense in this case, Neyhart committed and was convicted of the Level 6 felony unlawful possession or use of a legend drug and Level 6 felony identity deception in St. Joseph County.² Moreover, before committing the offense in this case, Neyhart had misdemeanor convictions for battery, driving while suspended, and criminal trespass. After committing the offense in this case, Neyhart committed and was convicted of the misdemeanor refusal to identify herself in LaPorte County.

[12] Further, at the time that the PSI was completed in this case, Neyhart had multiple felony and misdemeanor charges pending in three different counties. Specifically, the Level 6 felony domestic battery and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy charges were still pending in LaPorte County, the two Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended charges were still pending in Porter County, and the Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended charge was still pending in LaPorte County.

[13] The PSI further revealed that in addition to violating her pretrial release multiple times in this case, Neyhart has violated the terms and conditions of her probation in other cases. Specifically, following her conviction for Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass, the State filed nine petitions to revoke her probation. Further, at the time the PSI was completed, Neyhart was on probation in St. Joseph County for the Level 6 felony unlawful possession or use of a legend drug and Level 6 felony identity deception convictions, and her probation officer in that case was planning to file a petition to revoke Neyhart's probation because of Neyhart's continued criminal activity.

[14] Also, at the sentencing hearing, Neyhart testified that, at one time, she had been sober for ten years while on probation for a past offense. However, according to Neyhart, she had relapsed, and her four children had been removed. Neyhart further testified that she had, at some point, successfully completed an outpatient drug treatment program, she was attending weekly therapy, and her children had been returned to her. In addition, she testified that she had most recently been sober for “[a]t least a year-and-a-half[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 18).

[15] At the end of the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated as follows:

Here's what the Court finds, that there's aggravating factors that she has a criminal history, she's recently and prior, and most recently violated, numerous times, the conditions of her bond and probation. She's been convicted of other charges. She has other charges pending all since this began. The mitigating factor is she pled guilty to the highest count. The aggravators outweigh the mitigators.

(Tr. Vol. 2 at 33). Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Neyhart to four (4) years in the Department of Correction.

[16] Neyhart now appeals her sentence.

Decision

[17] Neyhart argues that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing her and that her sentence is inappropriate. We address each of her contentions in turn.

1. Abuse of Discretion

[18] Neyhart first argues that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing her. Sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (2007). So long as the sentence is in the statutory range, it is subject to review only for an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. Id. at 491. A trial court may abuse its discretion in a number of ways, including: (1) failing to enter a sentencing statement at all; (2) entering a sentencing statement that includes aggravating and mitigating factors that are unsupported by the record; (3) entering a sentencing statement that omits reasons that are clearly supported by the record; or (4) entering a sentencing statement that includes reasons that are improper as a matter of law. Id. at 490-91.

[19] Here, Neyhart argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to consider her history of substance abuse and treatment as a mitigating factor. A finding of a mitigating factor is not mandatory but is within the discretion of the trial court. Page v. State, 878 N.E.2d 404, 408 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. In order to show that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to find a mitigating factor, the defendant must establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record. Rogers v. State, 958 N.E.2d 4, 9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

[20] However, because Neyhart did not argue at the sentencing hearing that her substance abuse and treatment was a mitigating factor, Neyhart has waived appellate review of this issue. See Bryant v. State, 984 N.E.2d 240, 252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (explaining that failure to present a mitigating factor to the trial court waives consideration of that factor on appeal), trans. denied.

[21] Waiver notwithstanding, even if the trial court had abused its discretion by not finding Neyhart's substance abuse and treatment to be a mitigating factor, any error was harmless. When the trial court abuses its discretion in sentencing, we will remand if we cannot say with confidence that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence. Webb v. State, 941 N.E.2d 1082, 1090 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. Here, the trial court found Neyhart's criminal history, bond and probation violations, and commission of additional offenses while on pretrial release in this case to be aggravating factors. Because of the presence of these significant aggravating factors, we conclude that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence even if it would have found Neyhart's substance abuse and treatment to be a mitigating factor. See Scott v. State, 840 N.E.2d 376, 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (holding that although the trial court erred in failing to find the defendant's mental illness to be a mitigating factor, the error was harmless in light of multiple valid aggravating factors), trans. denied. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Neyhart.

2. Inappropriate Sentence

[22] Neyhart also argues that her sentence is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, we find that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. The defendant bears the burden of persuading this Court that her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate 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.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008).

[23] The Indiana Supreme Court has further explained that “sentencing is principally a discretionary function in which the trial court's judgment should receive considerable deference.” Id. at 1222. “Such deference should prevail unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant's character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[24] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, 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. Here, Neyhart pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony possession of cocaine. The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is between one (1) and six (6) years, and the advisory sentence is three (3) years. I.C. § 35-50-2-6(b). The trial court sentenced Neyhart to four years, which is less than the maximum sentence.

[25] Regarding the nature of the offense, Neyhart possessed more than five grams of cocaine. Regarding Neyhart's character, we note that Neyhart has an extensive fourteen-year criminal history that includes multiple felony and misdemeanor convictions. She also has a history of violating probation, and she violated her pretrial release in this case several times. Notably, while Neyhart was on pretrial release in this case, the State charged her in three separate counties with a total of four felonies and six misdemeanors. Neyhart's commission of these additional offenses while on pretrial release in this case shows a disdain for the law.

[26] Based on the record before us, Neyhart has failed to meet her burden to persuade this Court that her sentence is inappropriate. Therefore, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

[27] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.

2.   The State apparently dismissed the second charge of Level 6 felony unlawful possession or use of a legend drug as well as the Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended charge.

Pyle, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.