Leia Shianne Woody, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Leia Woody pleaded guilty to Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine after she was found in possession of 62 grams of the drug. The trial court sentenced Woody to 22 years imprisonment, with two of those years suspended to probation. On appeal, Woody argues this sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and her character. But she possessed over six times the amount of methamphetamine needed to prove the offense, and her criminal history reflects an escalating pattern of criminal conduct despite prior opportunities for rehabilitation. Because Woody has not shown that her sentence warrants revision, we affirm.

Facts

[2] On July 1, 2024, officers executing a search warrant at Woody's residence found approximately 62 grams of methamphetamine, a digital scale with white crystalline residue, and some marijuana. She admitted to the officers that she dealt methamphetamine. The State later charged Woody with three offenses: Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine; Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance; and Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

[3] In September 2025, Woody entered into a conditional plea agreement with the State. She agreed to plead guilty to Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine in exchange for the dismissal of the other two charges. The agreement capped her sentence at 22 years, which is 8 years below the statutory maximum for a Level 2 felony. The trial court accepted the plea and entered judgment of conviction on the Level 2 felony.

[4] At sentencing, several witnesses described Woody's rehabilitative efforts while in the county jail, where she had been incarcerated since her arrest. Two recovery workers testified that she participated actively and consistently in substance abuse programming. One worker testified that she “got the sense that [Woody] was actually trying to improve herself.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 18. Woody's mother testified that Woody “wants to take accountability.” Id. at 31. Woody herself testified that she participated in “every group” and had “learned so much.” Id. at 58. She acknowledged that her decisions had “affected the whole community” and “altered [the] entire life” of her children. Id. at 64-65.

[5] When asked how many times she dealt methamphetamine, she stated that it was fewer than 100 times but “enough” to “destroy lives.” Id. at 82. She acknowledged that two months before her arrest, her two children were removed from her care following a positive drug screen for methamphetamine. Woody also acknowledged that she dealt the drugs in the house she had shared with her children before they were removed. The methamphetamine was found in the bedroom where her children had routinely slept. However, she claimed she only started dealing after her children were removed.

[6] The trial court found three aggravating circumstances: (1) Woody's criminal history, including convictions for neglect of a dependent and possession of methamphetamine; (2) her recent probation violation based on her methamphetamine use; and (3) the fact that the amount of methamphetamine she admitted to possessing was far beyond what the State needed to prove. In mitigation, the court found that Woody had availed herself of services while incarcerated and was cooperative with police, though both had little mitigating weight because they were taken into consideration by the plea agreement.

[7] The court found that the aggravators substantially outweighed the mitigating circumstances and sentenced Woody to 22 years—the maximum allowed under the plea agreement—and suspended two years to probation. Woody appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] On appeal, Woody argues that her 22-year sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). That rule permits an appellate court to revise a sentence 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.” App. R. 7(B).

[9] The nature of the offense and the character of the offender 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 Connor v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 218-19 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)). We give “substantial deference” to the trial court's sentencing decision, attempting only “to leaven the outliers” rather than “achieve a perceived ‘correct’ sentence.” Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014) (citations omitted). Woody bears the burden of persuading us that her sentence is inappropriate. See Harris v. State, 165 N.E.3d 91, 99 (Ind. 2021).

[10] Regarding the nature of the offense, we begin with the statutory range. A Level 2 felony carries a sentencing range of 10 to 30 years, with an advisory sentence of 17.5 years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5. Thus, Woody's 22-year sentence is above the advisory but well below the statutory maximum. It was the maximum allowed by her plea agreement, under which the State dismissed two other charges against her. The court suspended two years of Woody's sentence, ultimately reducing her total incarceration time. We are not persuaded that this sentence is inappropriate.

[11] In assessing the nature of the offense, we compare “the defendant's actions with the required showing to sustain a conviction under the charged offense” and identify whether there is “anything more or less egregious” about the defendant's offense that distinguishes it from the “typical offense.” McFarland v. State, 153 N.E.3d 369, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). Woody argues that the commission of her offense involved no violence or brutality, and she cooperated with police. However, Woody was found in possession of 62 grams of methamphetamine—over six times more than the 10 grams required for a Level 2 felony. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(e)(1). She admitted that she dealt the drug on numerous occasions, estimating that it was fewer than a hundred times but “enough” to “destroy lives.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 82. Dealing in that volume is considerably more serious than the typical offense.

[12] As to her character, Woody acknowledges her 5 prior convictions. “Even a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendant's character.” Moss v. State, 13 N.E.3d 440, 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). In 2018, Woody was convicted of two counts of felony neglect of a dependent as to her children, misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, and misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Her felony neglect convictions were entered as misdemeanors, and she was sentenced to probation. Then, in 2022, Woody was convicted of possession of methamphetamine and was again sentenced to probation, but this time with an order to complete a substance abuse assessment. She violated that probation by using methamphetamine and was ordered to serve her remaining sentence on home detention. Six months after completing home detention, she was arrested for the instant offense. Woody also has an active warrant in Ohio, and she reported a juvenile offense that was resolved through a deferral program.

[13] “The significance of criminal history varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current offense.” Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852, 857 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Woody's history is significant because it shows a pattern of escalating conduct culminating in the instant offense. Despite repeated opportunities for rehabilitation and multiple fully suspended sentences, Woody's criminal conduct only worsened, progressing from possession of methamphetamine to dealing the drug.

[14] Though Woody argues that her active engagement in recovery programs while incarcerated supports a more “moderate” sentence with home detention or community corrections, Woody's recent conduct must still be considered alongside the other evidence of her character. Appellant's Br., p. 17. Woody was already given the opportunity to pursue treatment during her prior periods of probation only to violate probation by using methamphetamine. She committed the present offense just six months after finishing home detention. This record demonstrates that Woody is not a good candidate for the placements that she requests and shows that her sentence does not warrant revision.

[15] Considering the large quantity of methamphetamine that Woody possessed and dealt, as well as her escalating criminal history, Woody has not demonstrated that her 22-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and her character.

[16] Affirmed.

Weissmann, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.