Melissa Jo Samuels, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Melissa Jo Samuels claims that her aggregate sentence for dealing in methamphetamine as a level 2 felony and possession of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor is inappropriate. We affirm Samuels's sentence as stated in the trial court's oral sentencing statement and remand for a corrected written sentencing order and abstract of judgment.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On July 2, 2024, Munster Police Detective Daniel Steven Balich initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle for not displaying a license plate. Samuels, who owned the vehicle, was seated in the front passenger seat, and a man was seated in the driver's seat. With Samuels's consent, Detective Balich searched the vehicle and found marijuana near the center console and a purse on the passenger seat which contained packages of marijuana, a pill bottle containing two chunks of a white crystal-like substance, and a small digital scale. He also found a pipe and a large amount of U.S. currency. Officer Sarah Storm conducted a pat down of Samuels and found a bag of methamphetamine on her which was later determined to consist of 41.42 grams. Detective Balich advised Samuels of her Miranda rights. Detective Balich asked about the methamphetamine, and Samuels indicated the man driving the vehicle had “asked her if she had anything illegal on her person as he feared if there were any cops in the area” and she “looked under her front passenger seat and located the clear plastic bag with the methamphetamine Officer Storm had provided ․ and placed that in her bra area.” Transcript Volume II at 183. Samuels stated that she planned to sell the methamphetamine back to her ex-boyfriend.

[3] On July 3, 2024, the State charged Samuels with: Count I, dealing in methamphetamine as a level 2 felony; and Count II, possession of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor. At trial, when asked, “did Ms. Samuels make the comment, I was hoping to make money off of it,” Officer Storm answered affirmatively. Transcript Volume III at 6. When asked, “they found the pill bottle of the methamphetamine” and “[w]as that yours,” Samuels replied, “[i]t was mine. That was the little bit I had that I would use.” Id. at 37. When asked with respect to the bag of methamphetamine found on her person, “when you were talking to the officers and you made some statements ․ that you were going to go sell it, make some money off of it, ․ did you mean it,” Samuels responded, “I should apologize. I was being sarcastic because I thought he was kind of rude to me, just the way he was stating things.” Id. at 42-43. The jury found Samuels guilty as charged.

[4] On February 10, 2026, the court held a sentencing hearing. Following argument, the court orally stated: “On Count II, possession of marijuana, six months in the Lake County Jail, suspended. On Count I, dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 2 felony, 17 and a half years in Department of Corrections, the last year and a half in Community Corrections.” Id. at 115. Samuels's counsel stated, “[y]ou were speaking so fast, Judge, I missed it.” Id. The court stated: “I'm sorry. Count II, possession of marijuana, six months Lake County Jail, suspended. Count I, the advisory sentence of 17 and a half years with the last year and a half in Community Corrections.” Id. at 115-116. In its written sentencing order, the court stated the aggravating circumstances included that Samuels has had five contacts with the criminal justice system, has two misdemeanor convictions for drug-related offenses, and has had the previous benefit of deferred prosecution.¹ It stated the mitigating circumstances included that Samuels's drug addiction has been a significant contributing factor in her criminal conduct and that she expressed sincere remorse. The order stated, “the Court ․ finds the aggravating factors balance the mitigating factors.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 76. The order then provided:

The Court now sentences [Samuels] on Count I, Dealing in Methamphetamine, a Level 2 Felony, as follows:

[Samuels] is now ordered committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections to the advisory sentence of seventeen and a half (17.5) years to be served in the Department of Correction followed by one and a half (1.5) years suspended to be served in Lake County Community Corrections Program․

The Court now sentences [Samuels] on Count II, Possession of Marijuana, a Class B Misdemeanor, as follows:

The defendant is now ordered committed to six (6) months to be served in the Lake County Jail, all of which is suspended.

Both sentences are to run concurrently of each other.

Id. The abstract of judgment indicates a sentence of nineteen years with 1.5 years on community corrections on Count I and six months on Count II.

Discussion

[5] Samuels asserts that her sentence is inappropriate. She argues she “intended to distribute the drugs on a single occasion, in effect getting her money back for the same drugs she was hoping to stop using” and, “[c]onsidering the one-off nature of her intent to deliver and the unremarkable weight of the methamphetamine, the nature of the offense fails to justify an enhanced sentence.” Appellant's Brief at 9-10. As for her character, she asserts that her criminal history is minimal, her risk assessment indicated a moderate risk to reoffend, her “untreated addiction would seem to be the singular catalyst of her contacts with law enforcement,” and she “has never benefitted from substance abuse treatment.” Id. at 11. Samuels requests this Court to reduce her sentence “to either 1) the advisory term, with an order for [her] to participate in Recovery While Incarcerated, enabling [her] to file for modification upon completion,” or “2) a fifteen year term to be served five years in the Department of Corrections, five years in the Lake County Community Corrections with a condition of substance abuse treatment, and five years to be suspended and served on probation, with the condition of ongoing treatment.” Id. at 13.

[6] Ind. 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.” Under this rule, the burden is on the defendant to persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5 provides that a person who commits a level 2 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between ten and thirty years with the advisory sentence being 17.5 years. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-3 provides that a person who commits a class B misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than 180 days.

[7] The trial court orally sentenced Samuels on Count I to “the advisory sentence of 17 and a half years with the last year and a half in Community Corrections.” Transcript Volume III at 116. Indeed, in its written order, the court found “the aggravating factors balance the mitigating factors.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 76. However, the court's written order also stated that Samuels was sentenced to “seventeen and a half (17.5) years to be served in the Department of Correction followed by one and a half (1.5) years suspended to be served in Lake County Community Corrections Program.” Id. (emphasis added). When a conflict occurs between oral and written sentencing statements, the court on review has the “option of crediting the statement that accurately pronounces sentence or remanding for resentencing.” Dowell v. State, 873 N.E.2d 59, 60 (Ind. 2007) (quoting McElroy v. State, 865 N.E.2d 584, 589 (Ind. 2007)). The court's oral sentencing statement did not set forth reasons for an enhanced sentence, and the court's written sentencing statement expressly stated that it found the aggravating factors balance the mitigating factors. In light of the court's oral sentencing statement and its finding that the aggravating factors balance the mitigating factors, we remand for the court to enter an amended written sentencing order and abstract of judgment to reflect the sentence which it pronounced orally at sentencing, namely, a sentence of 17.5 years with 1.5 years of that sentence served on community corrections under Count I, and six months suspended under Count II to be served concurrently with the sentence in Count I. See generally Murrell v. State, 960 N.E.2d 854, 859-860 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (“In this case, neither the trial court's oral sentencing statement nor the written sentencing order identifies any grounds that would support the imposition of consecutive sentences. In the absence of such grounds, the trial court's oral statement ordering Murrell to serve concurrent sentences is more appropriate. Consequently, we remand with instructions for the trial court to correct its written sentencing order to impose concurrent sentences upon Murrell's convictions.”); Dowell, 873 N.E.2d at 60-61 (applying McElroy and resolving conflicting sentencing statements after a comparison rather than remanding for resentencing).

[8] Our review of the nature of the offenses reveals that Samuels possessed with the intent to deliver 41.42 grams of methamphetamine and also possessed marijuana. Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Samuels, who was born in 1981, was convicted of operating a vehicle with a Schedule I or II controlled substance as a class C misdemeanor in 1999 and possession of paraphernalia as a class C misdemeanor in 2022. The presentence investigation report (“PSI”) indicates that Samuels was charged with possession of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor in 2020 for which a pretrial diversion agreement was filed and that she failed to appear for a scheduled hearing in December 2025 in that matter.

[9] With respect to substance abuse, Samuels reported that she first began using alcohol at the age of seventeen and last consumed alcohol approximately four days before the PSI interview in October 2025. She reported she has experimented with mushrooms, acid, crack cocaine, LSD, cocaine, and various pills. She reported she first used methamphetamine at the age of forty-one, last used it the day before the PSI interview, and estimated she used it twice per week. She first used marijuana at the age of thirteen, last used it the day before the interview, and estimated she used it daily. She reported that she first used heroin laced with fentanyl at the age of forty-three and last used it the day before the interview, and she estimated she used heroin once per week. Samuels indicated that she struggles with methamphetamine, marijuana, and heroin addiction and used the drugs to self-medicate. She admitted that she was under the influence of mushrooms, alcohol, and marijuana on the day she committed the instant offenses. She stated that she has never undergone substance abuse treatment but would be willing to participate in a treatment program if required. The PSI indicates that Samuels's overall risk assessment score using IRAS places her in the moderate risk to reoffend category, and in particular shows a high risk in the domains of family and social support, peer associations, and substance abuse, moderate risk in the domains of education, employment, and financial situation and criminal attitudes and behavioral patterns, and low risk in the domains of criminal history and neighborhood problems.

[10] After due consideration, we conclude that Samuels's sentence as orally stated by the trial court at sentencing—the advisory sentence of 17.5 years with 1.5 years of that sentence served on community corrections on Count I and a concurrent sentence of six months on Count II—is not inappropriate in light of the nature of her offenses and her character. Mindful of her legal history and drug addiction, Samuels should avail herself of any treatment options available to her at the Department of Correction, the successful completion of which may very well support a modification of her sentence. As it is clear that her addiction has driven her behavior for which she has not received treatment, she deserves the chance to demonstrate that she can return to society drug-free.

[11] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Samuels's sentence as stated in the trial court's oral sentencing statement and remand for a corrected written sentencing order and abstract of judgment consistent with this opinion.

[12] Affirmed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The trial court further listed the following as an aggravator: “The defendant was assessed for risk and needs through the Indiana Risk Assessment System (IRAS) indicating a likelihood to re-offend.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 75. “Our Indiana Supreme Court has explained that scores on a risk assessment instrument ‘are not intended to serve as aggravating or mitigating circumstances nor to determine the gross length of sentence.’ ” Kayser v. State, 131 N.E.3d 717, 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Malenchik v. State, 928 N.E.2d 564, 575 (Ind. 2010)). The trial court also listed the following as an aggravator: “The Court finds that given the nature of the offense and character of the defendant, the sentence imposed is appropriate and proper.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 75. The State notes, “[t]his does not appear intended to be an actual aggravating circumstance.” Appellee's Brief at 8 n.1.

Brown, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.