Laporsha Cooper, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Laporsha Cooper asks us to review and revise the aggregate three-year sentence the trial court imposed after she pleaded guilty to three felonies, arguing her sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 20, 2023, Cooper was driving her car while intoxicated with her two minor children in the back seat. Her car struck a moped, injuring the driver. Cooper's breath alcohol content was 0.094 g/210L. The State charged Cooper with Level 5 felony operating while intoxicated (“OWI”) causing serious bodily injury,¹ and two counts of Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent.²

[3] On January 22, 2024, Cooper agreed to plead guilty as charged and participate in the Allen Superior Court drug court diversion program. As a condition of her participation, she vowed to obey the drug court rules, including to maintain good behavior throughout the program and to not consume illegal drugs or alcohol. If Cooper successfully completed the program, the State agreed it would amend the OWI to a Class A misdemeanor and dismiss the neglect charges. The trial court took Cooper's guilty plea under advisement on January 24, placed her in the drug court program, and held sentencing in abeyance pending completion of the program.

[4] On entering the drug court program, Cooper was suffering from severe alcohol and substance use disorders. She had also been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). During her participation in the program, she completed substance use treatment, therapy, medication-assisted treatment (Antabuse), parenting classes, and a relapse prevention program. She was compliant with support group and case management meetings and individual counseling. She had three positive urine drug screens and one dilute urine screen from May to November 2024.

[5] In April 2025, Cooper was arrested and charged in a separate cause with Level 6 felony domestic battery in the presence of a child less than sixteen years old, Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The State petitioned to terminate Cooper's participation in the drug court program based on the new charges.³ Cooper admitted the allegations at a hearing, and the trial court granted State's petition. The trial court ordered probation to complete a presentence investigation (“PSI”) report.

[6] According to the PSI, Cooper has a prior criminal history of four misdemeanor driving-related convictions: three for driving while suspended and one for failure to return to the scene of an accident resulting in damage to an attended vehicle. As a juvenile, she was alleged to have engaged in what would be misdemeanor disorderly conduct if committed by an adult and completed a program of informal adjustment. Her Indiana Risk Assessment System (“IRAS”) score categorized her as a low risk to reoffend.

[7] The trial court held a sentencing hearing on May 23, at which Cooper accepted responsibility and expressed remorse for her actions. The State introduced the results of Cooper's breath alcohol test from the night of the crash, photographs of the scene, and law enforcement's accident report. At the end of the hearing, the trial court sentenced Cooper to concurrent terms of three years for the OWI conviction and one and one-half years for each neglect conviction, all executed in the Indiana Department of Correction. It also ordered her to make restitution of $22,780.19 to the moped driver to cover his medical bills.

Cooper's sentence was not inappropriate.

[8] Cooper asks us to revise her sentence. The Indiana Constitution authorizes this Court to review and revise a trial court's sentencing decision as provided by rule. Ind. Const. art. 7, § 6. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides we may 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.” The principal role of appellate review is to leaven the outliers, not to achieve a perceived correct sentence in each case. Conley v. State, 183 N.E.3d 276, 288 (Ind. 2022). Therefore, “we reserve our 7(B) authority for exceptional cases.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 160 (Ind. 2019) (per curiam).

[9] “[S]entencing is principally a discretionary function in which the trial court's judgment should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008). “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 7(B) review 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) (quoting Conner v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)). “[T]o the extent the evidence on one prong militates against relief, a claim based on the other prong must be all the stronger to justify relief.” Id. at 127.

[10] The question “is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Helsley v. State, 43 N.E.3d 225, 228 (Ind. 2015) (quoting King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)) (emphasis omitted). Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate “turns on our sense of 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, 895 N.E.2d at 1224. The defendant bears the burden of persuading us a revised sentence is warranted. Cramer v. State, 240 N.E.3d 693, 698 (Ind. 2024).

[11] A Level 5 felony conviction carries a sentencing range of one to six years, with an advisory sentence of three years. I.C. § 35-50-2-6(b) (2014). A Level 6 felony conviction carries a sentencing range of six months to two and one-half years, with an advisory sentence of one year. I.C. § 35-50-2-7(b) (2019). Cooper therefore received the advisory sentence for the OWI conviction, and slightly elevated sentences for her two neglect convictions.

[12] However, “appellate review should focus 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, 895 N.E.2d at 1225. Because the trial court ordered the sentences served concurrently, the aggregate term Cooper received reflects an advisory sentence for the highest-level felony for which she was convicted. Our legislature has selected the advisory sentence as the “starting point” for “an appropriate sentence for the crime committed,” and so the defendant bears a “particularly heavy burden” when the trial court imposes the advisory sentence. Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.

[13] As to the nature of the offense, there is nothing remarkable about the facts that portray the offense itself in a positive light.

[14] As to Cooper's character, she notes she stayed at the scene and called 9-1-1 on the night of the accident, took responsibility by pleading guilty, and expressed remorse. According to the PSI, her IRAS score indicates a low risk of reoffending. And noting her PTSD diagnosis and history of substance use disorder, she argues her character demonstrates she is a person who needs “additional treatment and not incarceration.” Appellant's Br. at 18.

[15] Yet Cooper has a criminal history including involvement with the juvenile justice system and four prior misdemeanor driving-related convictions. Even a minor criminal record reflects poorly on a defendant's character. Cramer, 240 N.E.3d at 700. As the trial court observed, for these convictions Cooper received “short, intermediate, and longer jail sentences, community service, home detention twice, [and] suspended sentences.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 17. Despite multiple opportunities to reform her behavior, she committed another driving offense, which this time caused serious bodily injury to another person and endangered her children. Even then, the trial court afforded Cooper an opportunity to address her substance use issues through the drug court diversion program. But she was unable to complete it because she committed new offenses, including a crime of violence in the presence of a child. In sum, Cooper has not shown such substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character to warrant sentence revision, particularly where she received an aggregate sentence equal to the advisory for a Level 5 felony.

[16] Cooper's sentence was not inappropriate.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 9-30-5-4(a)(3) (2019).

2.   I.C. § 35-46-1-4(a) (2021).

3.   Cooper pleaded guilty to the charges pursuant to a fixed plea agreement. The trial court accepted Cooper's plea and sentenced her in accordance with the agreement. She does not appeal her sentence in that cause.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.