Lisa G. Tesch, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In August 2025, Lisa G. Tesch pled guilty to Level 4 felony failure to remain at the scene of an accident resulting in death. The trial court sentenced her to twelve years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). Tesch now appeals her sentence, arguing it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and her character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 16, 2023, Tesch visited her son, his eighteen-month-old daughter, E.C., and other family members at a Motel 6 in Jeffersonville. As Tesch backed her Chevrolet Trailblazer out of a parking spot to leave, E.C. walked near the front of the vehicle. When Tesch drove forward, she struck E.C. with the passenger-side front bumper of her vehicle, drove over E.C. with the front and rear passenger-side tires, then stopped the vehicle. Tesch knew she had hit someone. When she exited the vehicle, she observed her son carrying E.C. to nearby grass. Tesch saw that E.C. was not moving and realized she caused E.C.’s injuries. She then re-entered her vehicle and drove away at a high rate of speed without calling 9-1-1, providing information, or rendering aid. E.C. was pronounced deceased shortly after.

[3] The same day, the State charged Tesch with Level 4 felony leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death and alleged she was a habitual offender, and a warrant was issued for her arrest. Tesch's vehicle was recovered in Louisville, Kentucky a few days later. Tesch evaded prosecution and did not turn herself in on the warrant. In August, she was incarcerated in Kentucky pursuant to a community corrections violation in another case. Upon her release in April 2024, the warrant in the instant case was executed.

[4] In August 2025, Tesch pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to Level 4 felony failure to remain at the scene of an accident resulting in death. The State agreed to dismiss the habitual offender allegation, and the plea agreement left sentencing to the discretion of the trial court.

[5] At sentencing, Tesch submitted letters expressing her remorse and letters of support from her fellow inmates. The State submitted surveillance video of the offense, E.C.’s autopsy report, and the accident report. After reviewing the evidence and Tesch's pre-sentence investigation report, the court found the following aggravators: 1) Tesch had a criminal history consisting of sixteen misdemeanor and thirty-two felony convictions; 2) the victim was less than twelve years old; 3) Tesch was on probation in two cases and on parole in a third at the time of the instant offense; 4) the crime went beyond the statutory elements in that Tesch “didn't flinch” and fled the scene while other family members rendered aid, Tr. Vol. II p. 43; 5) Tesch exhibited a callous disregard for human life; 6) Tesch evaded prosecution; and 7) Tesch had violated probation at least seven times in prior cases. The court found no mitigators and considered that Tesch did not qualify for community corrections placement. The court accepted the plea, dismissed the habitual offender enhancement, and sentenced Tesch to twelve years executed in the DOC. Tesch now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Tesch argues her twelve-year sentence in the DOC is inappropriate. 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 the “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)).

Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) is a rare avenue for appellate relief that is reserved for exceptional cases. Even with Rule 7(B), sentencing is principally a discretionary function in which the trial court's judgment should receive considerable deference. 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). Absent such a sufficiently compelling evidentiary basis, we will not override the decision of ․ the trial court.

Sorenson v. State, 133 N.E.3d 717, 728 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (citations, quotations, and brackets omitted), trans. denied.

[7] When reviewing whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge the advisory sentence is the starting point. Horns v. State, 218 N.E.3d 591, 595 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied. The sentencing range for a Level 4 felony is between two and twelve years, with an advisory sentence of six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5 (2014). Here, the court imposed the maximum sentence of twelve years.

[8] As to the nature of Tesch's offense, we note the trial court's observation that everyone agreed that Tesch running over E.C. was “an accident.” Tr. Vol. II p. 43. However, the trial court observed the egregious nature of this offense stemmed from Tesch's behavior immediately following the accident. Indeed, as “[e]veryone else in that family came to render aid, and to see if that child was ok[,] [Tesch] didn't flinch.” Id. Instead, Tesch got back in her car and fled the scene without calling 9-1-1 or rendering aid, demonstrating complete disregard for the life of her own granddaughter, a mere eighteen-month-old toddler. Tesch has failed to portray in a positive light her cold-hearted, egocentric response to this tragic accident.

[9] Regarding her character, Tesch asserts her caring and generous traits identified by her fellow inmates and her role as a caregiver to her brothers demonstrate that she has a “deep—if imperfect—moral commitment to the welfare of others.” Appellant's Br. p. 14. Notwithstanding her otherwise caring nature, Tesch failed to demonstrate any commitment to the welfare of her granddaughter when she opted to flee the scene and evade prosecution for about two months after striking E.C. with her vehicle. Tesch also argues her criminal history varies in nature from the instant offense and should not support a maximum sentence. But now fifty-four-year-old Tesch's criminal history is deplorable, spanning over twenty-five years and consisting of thirty-two felony and sixteen misdemeanor convictions. She was also on probation in two cases and on parole in a third at the time she committed this offense. Her criminal history reflects poorly on her character and supports an enhanced sentence. See Horns, 218 N.E.3d at 596.

[10] Tesch has failed to present such compelling evidence to persuade us that her sentence is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B). We affirm.

[11] Affirmed.

Scheele, Judge.

May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.