MURRAY v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Andrea R. Murray (“Murray”) pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine ¹ as a Level 4 felony, and the trial court imposed an eight-year sentence with six years executed and two years suspended to probation. Murray appeals her sentence arguing that it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On November 14, 2023, a Franklin County Sheriff's Deputy found Murray sleeping in a vehicle in a parking lot. While speaking to Murray, the deputy saw a burnt marijuana cigarette in plain view in the vehicle. During a subsequent search of the vehicle, the deputy discovered a glass smoking pipe used for methamphetamine. The deputy asked Murray if she had any methamphetamine, and she told him she had some methamphetamine in her bra. The drugs that were removed from her bra were weighed and determined to weigh 20.8 grams.

[3] On November 16, 2023, the State charged Murray with Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine, Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. On December 16, 2024, Murray pleaded guilty in an open plea agreement to Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine, and in exchange, the State dismissed the remaining two counts. The guilty plea left sentencing to the trial court's discretion. After accepting her guilty plea, the trial court ordered a presentence investigation report (“PSI”) and scheduled a sentencing hearing.

[4] At the time of sentencing, Murray's PSI reflected that her criminal history consisted of eight misdemeanor convictions, one felony conviction, and four probation revocations that led to either extensions of her probation or revocations. Many of her convictions were drug related. She has convictions for operating a motor vehicle above .08 alcohol concentration, Class B felony dealing in a controlled substance, driving while suspended, operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and possession of paraphernalia. Additionally, after she was arrested but before she was sentenced in the present case, Murray was convicted and sentenced for visiting a common nuisance, possession of marijuana, and unlawful possession of a legend drug. According to Murray's PSI, as a result of her criminal convictions, she has served executed time in jail or prison or both, has been on probation, has violated probation, has been committed to community corrections, and has had at least one felony reduced to a misdemeanor. Prior to committing the present offense, Murray had entered recovery groups in April 2022 while on probation.

[5] On May 12, 2025, the trial court held a sentencing hearing and sentenced Murray to eight years with two years suspended to probation and six years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”). Murray now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Murray contends that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. The Indiana Constitution authorizes appellate review and revision of a trial court's sentencing decision. See Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6; Jackson v. State, 145 N.E.3d 783, 784 (Ind. 2020). “That authority is implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), which permits an appellate court to revise a sentence if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the sentence is found to be inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 159 (Ind. 2019).

[7] Our review under Appellate Rule 7(B) focuses on “the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). We generally defer to the trial court's sentencing decision, and our goal is to determine whether the defendant's sentence is inappropriate, not whether some other sentence would be more appropriate. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012). “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). The two prongs of Appellate Rule 7(B) are separate inquiries to ultimately be balanced in determining whether a sentence is inappropriate. Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 126 (Ind. 2024) (citing Connor v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)). “Reviewing courts ‘must consider’ both factors, but the defendant need not ‘necessarily prove’ that the sentence is inappropriate on both counts.” Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting Connor, 58 N.E.3d at 219).

[8] Murray pleaded guilty to Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine. A person who commits a Level 4 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two and twelve years, with the advisory sentence being six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5. Here, the trial court sentenced Murray to eight years with two years suspended to probation and six years executed.

[9] When reviewing the nature of the offense, this court considers “the details and circumstances of the commission of the offense.” Merriweather v. State, 151 N.E.3d 1281, 1286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). In arguing that her sentence is inappropriate, Murray contends that her offense was already aggravated by the amount of methamphetamine discovered by the deputy. The possession of methamphetamine of any amount is a Level 6 felony, and Murray pleaded guilty to Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine, which applies when the amount of the drug is at least ten but less than twenty-eight grams. I.C. § 35-48-4-6.1. Because Murray possessed 20.8 grams of methamphetamine, she asserts that her offense falls right in the middle of this range.

[10] Here, the circumstances of Murray's offense were that when the deputy encountered Murray, she was asleep in her vehicle with a marijuana cigarette in plain view. During a subsequent search of the vehicle, a glass pipe used to smoke methamphetamine was discovered, and Murray later admitted that she had a quantity of methamphetamine hidden in her bra, which ultimately was determined to weigh 20.8 grams. As a result, Murray faced charges of Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine, Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, and two of those offenses were dismissed when she pleaded guilty. While Murray is correct that the amount of methamphetamine that she was found to be in possession of has been accounted for the in level of felony for which she was convicted, the fact that the amount of drugs that she possessed was within the statutory range for the felony for which she was convicted is not compelling evidence warranting a downward revision of her sentence. Murray has not demonstrated compelling evidence portraying the nature of her offenses in a positive light, accompanied by restraint, regard, or lack of brutality. See Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122.

[11] When we look to a defendant's character, we engage in “a broad analysis of the defendant's ‘qualities, life, and conduct.’ ” Cramer v. State, 240 N.E.3d 693, 699 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Crabtree v. State, 152 N.E.3d 687, 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied). As to Murray's character, she acknowledges her criminal history but points to testimony by her current probation officer that Murray was a “good probationer” during her most recent period of probation. Tr. Vol. 2 p. 54. However, this period of recent probation began while the current case was pending, which could reflect a desire to demonstrate compliance for sentencing. The evidence at sentencing revealed that Murray had a fairly extensive criminal history consisting of eight misdemeanor convictions, one felony conviction, and numerous probation violations that led to extensions of probation and revocations. She had four probation revocations, and one of those, where she was ordered to serve time in the DOC, followed her Class B felony conviction for dealing a controlled substance. Her adult history began in 2003 with many of her offenses occurring since 2019. Her criminal history mainly consists of offenses related to substances and automobiles, which were both involved in the instant offense. Although Murray contends that the trial court should have considered home detention as placement for her sentence, the probation department testified that, as a rule, they do not do assessments for home detention for Level 4 felonies and higher without a plea agreement for such placement. Id. at 51–52. Further, although Murray had been in group recovery since April 2022, according to the PSI, she has had several new offenses, including the instant offense, since beginning that recovery. We, therefore, conclude that Murray has not shown that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of her offense and her character.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1(a), (c)(1).

Foley, Judge.

Altice, C.J. and May, J., concur.