Sierra Ann Marie Brown v. State of Indiana

Indianapolis, IN - Criminal defense attorney represented defendant charged with unlawful possession of a syringe and felony possession of a narcotic drug (heroin).

In April 2018, the State charged Brown with Level 6 felony unlawful possession

of a syringe and Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic drug (heroin).

Thereafter, Brown and the State entered into a plea agreement under which

Brown agreed to a sentence of thirty months in the DOC, which was stayed Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-2231 | June 24, 2021 Page 3 of 6

pending her successful completion of Madison County Problem Solving Courts1

(at which point the judgment and sentence would be vacated). Appellant's App.

Vol. II pp. 32, 35. However, if Brown "fail[ed], for any reason, to graduate from

the Problem Solving Court program,” the stayed sentence would be

"immediately imposed and executed.” Id. at 32.

[4] Brown, who suffers from addiction, bipolar disorder, multiple personalities, and

schizophrenia, started participating in Madison County Mental Health Court in

December 2019. While in Mental Health Court, Brown completed extended

outpatient at the Aspire treatment facility. In May 2020, Brown moved into a

halfway house, Stepping Stones. While living at Stepping Stones, Brown started

dating a man. When that man died in a car accident, Brown "relapsed on

heroin” and did not return to Mental Health Court. Supp. Tr. pp. 7, 9.

[5] In June 2020, Madison County Problem Solving Courts requested termination

of Brown's participation in Mental Health Court because of sixteen violations,

including failing to undergo drug screens, lying to the judge, failing to attend

therapy, associating with felons, and absconding from Mental Health Court.

Appellant's App. Vol. II pp. 43-45; see also Appellant's Br. p. 5 (Brown

acknowledging she had sixteen violations). At an evidentiary hearing held on

October 29, Brown admitted all the violations. The trial court said it was "duty

1 Madison County Problem Solving Courts contains four courts: Madison County Drug Court, Madison

County Mental Health Court, Madison County Reentry Court, and Madison County Veterans Court.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-2231 | June 24, 2021 Page 4 of 6

bound” "to follow the plea agreement” and "revoked [her] time to the

Department of Correction.” Supp. Tr. p. 12; see also Tr. p. 4.

[6] After going off the record at the October 29 hearing, defense counsel "pointed

out that there was an opportunity of an argument” to be made regarding

whether Brown had to serve all thirty months in the DOC. Tr. p. 4. The trial

court ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report and

scheduled a sanctions hearing for November 12. At the sanctions hearing, the

State said that if Brown did "certain things,” like "home detention with a

weekly screen,” it would recommend no DOC time. Id. at 5. Defense counsel

asked the court to incorporate the PSI into the record. According to the PSI,

Brown was not "currently” prescribed any medications for her mental-health

issues and had last received "treatment” at Aspire. Appellant's App. Vol. II p.

64. Defense counsel agreed with the State's recommendation, but the trial court

did not:

When looking at your pre-sentence investigation with respect to

the IRAS, the Indiana Risk Assessment Score, I've never seen a

worse score. You're high in terms of your risk factors in four (4)

out of the seven (7) categories. That's never happened before.

Secondly, I look at the CCS. I look at the failures to appear. I

look at what happened in your problem-solving court. It's among

the worst I've ever seen.

Tr. p. 7. The court then ordered Brown to serve all thirty months (minus credit

time) in the DOC, recommended Purposeful Incarceration, and "agree[d] to Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-2231 | June 24, 2021 Page 5 of 6

consider sentence modification upon successful completion of [the] program.”

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 13.

[7] Brown now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Brown, citing Holsapple v. State, 148 N.E.3d 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), argues

the trial court "failed to recognize that it had discretion as to what sanction to

impose” and asks us to remand the case "so that that discretion may be

exercised.” Appellant's Br. p. 5. The State, citing Mefford v. State, 165 N.E.3d

571 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied, argues the court did not have discretion

to impose less than the agreed-upon sentence—thirty months in the DOC. As

these cases illustrate, there is a growing discussion in this Court as to whether a

trial court has discretion to impose less than the agreed-upon sentence when a

defendant is terminated from problem-solving court. Here, however, we need

not decide whether the trial court had discretion to impose less than the agreedupon sentence because clearly the court ultimately concluded it did. At the

October 29 hearing, the court said it was "duty bound” "to follow the plea

agreement” and ordered Brown to serve all thirty months in the DOC. But the

court then changed its mind, ordered a PSI, and scheduled a sanctions hearing.

At the sanctions hearing, both the State and defense counsel asked the court not

to impose any DOC time. The court disagreed with their recommendation,

pointing out Brown's record was one of "the worst” it had ever seen. Since the

court knew it had discretion to impose less than the agreed-upon sentence and Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-2231 | June 24, 2021 Page 6 of 6

simply chose not to exercise that discretion, Brown's argument fails

We therefore affirm the trial court.