RUSH v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Jennifer Rush appeals her two-and-one-half year executed sentence for Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine. Rush raises one issue on appeal: whether her sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Finding Rush's sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On August 7, 2024, Howard County Dispatch received a call from a homeowner requesting Rush be removed from the property and “placed on trespass.” App. Vol. II p. 11. At the time, Rush had two active warrants for misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance and misdemeanor harassment. Howard County Sheriff's Office deputies arrested Rush and transported her to jail. During her intake and initial search at the jail, Rush handed a correctional officer a bag containing methamphetamine.

[3] The State charged Rush with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine. She pleaded guilty to the offense on November 14, 2024. The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing on February 20, 2025. Based on Rush's criminal history and high risk of reoffending, the Howard County Probation Department recommended that she receive the maximum two-and-one-half-year sentence.

[4] The presentence investigation report detailed Rush's juvenile delinquency and criminal history. As a juvenile, Rush was adjudicated a delinquent five times. As an adult, Rush accumulated thirteen misdemeanor convictions. She also had two felony convictions: one for dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug and another for operating while intoxicated with a prior conviction. Additionally, Rush was charged with several offenses that were ultimately dismissed. At the time of sentencing, Rush had three other cases pending.

[5] Rush also had a history of noncompliance with the conditions of her release. As a juvenile, she failed to complete a victim impact program and was terminated from a drug court due to her noncompliance. Rush repeatedly violated probation both as a juvenile and an adult and in one case violated community corrections six times before her participation was revoked. She also failed to complete an alcohol and drug program and was terminated from a community transition program by a re-entry court.

[6] Rush testified about her substance abuse and mental health issues at the sentencing hearing. She began using drugs when she was fourteen years old and admitted to using methamphetamine, amphetamine, heroin, methadone, fentanyl, Xanax, and suboxone within the last two years. She was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and claimed she also suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.

[7] The trial court found Rush's “substantial” criminal history to be an aggravating factor and Rush's bipolar mental health diagnosis to be a mitigating factor. Tr. Vol. II p. 16. The trial court found the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors and sentenced Rush to two-and-one-half years, or thirty months, executed with the Indiana Department of Correction. Rush now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Rush contends her two-and-one-half-year sentence is inappropriate and warrants revision in light of the nature of the offense and her character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) permits an appellate court to 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.” We give “considerable deference” to the trial court's sentencing decision and attempt only to “leaven the outliers” rather than achieve a “perceived ‘correct’ result” in every case. Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 122 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222, 1225 (Ind. 2008)). Our deference to the trial court prevails unless we are “overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense and the defendant's character.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). A defendant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).

[9] We first consider the statutory range for the class of the offense. Id. Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine has a sentencing range of six months to two-and-one-half years, with an advisory sentence of one year. Indiana Code § 35-50-2-7(b) (2019).¹ Rush received the maximum sentence.

[10] As for the nature of her offense, Rush was found with methamphetamine after being arrested for two active warrants. While Rush voluntarily turned the bag over to a jail staff, she did so during the intake process and initial search at the Howard County jail. The nature of her offense is not particularly egregious, but a trial court must balance this test with the nature of the offender's character. Connor v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

[11] Rush's sentence does not warrant revision in light of her character. She has an extensive criminal history. See generally Moss v. State, 13 N.E.3d 440, 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (observing that a criminal history “is a poor reflection of a defendant's character”), trans. denied. Rush also admitted she has used drugs since she was fourteen years old, including within the last two years. See Reynolds v. State, 142 N.E.3d 928, 945 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (considering evidence of uncharged conduct as part of the Rule 7(B) character analysis), trans. denied. And she repeatedly failed to comply with prior conditions of her release such as probation, in-home detention, or participation in substance abuse treatment programs. Rush's criminal history and current offense demonstrate a pattern of disregard for the law, which reflects negatively on her character. See Norris v. State, 113 N.E.3d 1245, 1257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (defendant's sentence was not inappropriate where his current offenses were part of a pattern of disregarding criminal laws and reflected negatively on his character), reh'g. denied. Rush has failed to establish the nature of her offense and character warrants revision of her sentence. We affirm.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Indiana Code section 35-50-2-7 was amended effective July 1, 2025; the relevant subsection remains the same.

Scheele, Judge.

Foley, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.