MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 09 2019, 9:26 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Ethan G. Bartanen Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Bartanen Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Salem, Indiana J.T. Whitehead
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kyla Kinslow, September 9, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-738
v. Appeal from the Washington
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Frank Newkirk,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Jr., Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
88D01-1712-F2-883
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-738 | September 9, 2019 Page 1 of 9
[1] Kyla Kinslow appeals her sentence for dealing in methamphetamine as a level 2
felony. She raises three issues which we consolidate and restate as whether her
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and her character.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In December 2017, a warrant was issued for Kinslow’s arrest under cause
number 88D01-1712-F3-871 (“Cause No. 871”) for: Count I, dealing in
methamphetamine/delivery of methamphetamine as a level 3 felony; Count II,
dealing in methamphetamine as a level 3 felony; Count III, possession of
methamphetamine as a level 5 felony; Count IV, neglect of a dependent as a
level 5 felony; Count V, possession of methamphetamine as a level 5 felony;
Count VI, maintaining a common nuisance as a level 6 felony; and Count VII,
maintaining a common nuisance as a level 6 felony.
[3] When the warrant was executed on December 18, 2017, Kinslow was in her
home with numerous plastic baggies containing at least ten grams of
methamphetamine. The State charged Kinslow under cause number 88D01-
1712-F2-883 (“Cause No. 883”) with Count I, dealing in methamphetamine as
a level 2 felony; Count II, maintaining a common nuisance as a level 6 felony;
Count III, possession of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor; and Count IV,
possession of paraphernalia as a class C misdemeanor.
[4] On December 18, 2018, Kinslow filed a plea agreement in which she agreed to
plead guilty to dealing in methamphetamine as a level 2 felony in Cause No.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-738 | September 9, 2019 Page 2 of 9
883 and the State agreed to dismiss all other counts under that cause number as
well as the counts under Cause No. 871.
[5] On December 19, 2019, the court held a hearing, and Kinslow pled guilty. On
March 5, 2019, the court held a sentencing hearing. The State presented the
testimony of Eric Mills, an employee of the Salem City Police Department
assigned to the Drug Task Force, who stated that he was familiar with Kinslow
and obtained an arrest warrant and a search warrant based on two controlled
buys. He indicated that one of the conversations recorded during a controlled
buy mentioned that Kinslow was headed to swim practice, and he learned
through his investigation that she was a coach for a local swim club and had
been offered a position to teach a middle school swim team. He testified that
there were multiple adults and three children, including Kinslow’s own child,
present when the search warrant was executed, and that methamphetamine
residue on a mirror or piece of glass was present in the general area of the home
and would have been accessible to multiple people in the home. He testified
that some drug paraphernalia was found in a child’s room and a glass smoking
pipe was found in the living room. He also indicated that Kinslow stated that
she sold to about twenty-five people in the community. The court admitted
recordings of the controlled buys, conversations regarding drug dealing which
occurred on Facebook, and letters Kinslow wrote to another person while they
were both incarcerated.
[6] Kinslow presented the testimony of her mother who stated that she believed her
daughter was an addict and that long-term separation would have a negative
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-738 | September 9, 2019 Page 3 of 9
effect on Kinslow’s child. Garo Kashian testified that he worked with jail
programs, that he met Kinslow on February 13, 2018, that she participated and
successfully completed three programs with him including a certified substance
abuse education program, and that it was possible that she would turn her life
around. Reverend Anastassia Zinke testified that he believed Kinslow’s
daughter would be significantly harmed by a long incarceration period. Valerie
Richardson testified that Kinslow worked as one of her accountants for years
and that she thought Kinslow needed rehab.
[7] Kinslow testified that she was high most of the time between August and
December 2017 “with the exception of a few hours here and there.” Transcript
Volume II at 86. When asked if she did what she could to protect her daughter,
she answered: “Yes and no. Yes, because despite everything else I love my
daughter. Um, and even if I wasn’t selling drugs in front of her or directly in
her presence, I still placed her in a position that was unsafe for her.” Id. She
testified that she was previously addicted to cocaine, overcame that addiction,
was clean for seven years before using methamphetamine, and believed she
could overcome that addiction. She stated “I’m ashamed of the depth to which
. . . I had fallen” and “I’ve placed this undue burden on my community, on my
family, on the people that knew me and respected me.” Id. at 98. She also
stated: “I know that I am fully accountable and I know that there are
consequences for my actions. I just want to say that I’m sorry. Deeply sorry.”
Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-738 | September 9, 2019 Page 4 of 9
[8] The probation officer who completed the presentence investigation report
(“PSI”) recommended a sentence of twenty years with two years suspended to
supervised probation. The PSI also states:
This officer spoke with Shawn Hurst of the Hoosier Hills PACT
Office Community Corrections. Shawn stated that she felt it
would be beneficial for the defendant to receive Purposeful
Incarceration while at the Indiana Department of Correction.
She also stated that if the defendant doesn’t receive Purposeful
Incarceration, she would recommend that any suspended time
would be done with Day Reporting as a term of the defendant’s
probation.
Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 31. The prosecutor recommended a
sentence of twenty-five years with five years suspended. Kinslow’s counsel
stated: “I don’t care how long the sentence is. I care how it is spent.”
Transcript Volume II at 103. He also stated: “We would ask the Court to
suspend a portion of the time sentenced, Your Honor, and allow my client to
participate in the available rehabilitation within the prisons or without the
prison so that we can get back to what we can do.” Id.
[9] The court stated:
[T]he aggravating circumstances include that you do have a
history of criminal activity. Mitigating that you did admit your
crime and you’ve entered into an open plea accepting the
judgment of the Court. But one of the things that the State
brought up had to do with character and whether to, how your
character might figure into this. And actually as I thought more
and more about it and considered the exhibits, I want to tell you
some things that I saw about character. One is you did have
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-738 | September 9, 2019 Page 5 of 9
your children around during drug sales. You had drugs and
paraphernalia where the children had access to it. And I realize
you have one child, but there are other children in the house.
That in your text messages you talked about giving Xanax to the
children before bedtime. And of course, whether you did or you
didn’t, it is clear from your text messages that you were out
making drug deliveries while your child was home in bed.
Which is, you know, just one piece of the puzzle here in trying to
figure out what your character is. You were breaking the jail
rules by passing notes and letters and in the letter or in your
explanation yesterday that it was because you were expecting
that he was going to be out. It’s clear from the context of the
letter that you knew he wasn’t out. You were talking about how
you were working, you were sorry you weren’t able to get him
out yet. You recruited other people to sell drugs for you. You
were supplying a large number of people with drugs. You said,
in one of your letters, and I think this is very telling. I mean you
were running this as a business. It wasn’t, as the prosecutor
pointed out, it wasn’t like somebody who was using drugs and
selling a little bit once in a while to get by, you had an ongoing
business. Which was organized with ledgers and associates and
underlings that were doing your bidding. And you said in one of
your letters that you wanted this other person out of jail so that
he could get rid of your snitches. That’s ruthless, that’s criminal
activity. That’s exactly what the drug dealing statutes are meant
to deal with. You’re getting the advisory sentence of seventeen
and a half years. None of it is suspended. . . . The other charges,
the other counts are being dismissed as a part of the agreement.
And I’m not recommending purposeful incarceration. You may
have a drug issue but this is mainly criminal activity and not
addiction.
Id. at 107-108. In its order, the court also mentioned a reduced sentence would
depreciate the seriousness of the charges. The court sentenced Kinslow to
seventeen and one-half years.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-738 | September 9, 2019 Page 6 of 9
Discussion
[10] The issue is whether Kinslow’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of
the offense and her character. Kinslow argues that her willingness to plead
guilty should serve as a positive when examining her character. She asserts that
she was a productive member of society as someone who worked in a tax
business and as a youth swim coach prior to her relapse. She also argues that
some suspended time or purposeful incarceration should have been considered
to allow for rehabilitation and treatment under the monitoring of the probation
department. The State argues that the advisory sentence, which was less than
that recommended by the probation officer in the PSI, was not inappropriate.
[11] 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).
[12] 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 seventeen and one-half years.
[13] Our review of the nature of the offense reveals that Kinslow committed dealing
in methamphetamine in the same house in which children were present
including her own daughter. Our review of the character of the offender reveals
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-738 | September 9, 2019 Page 7 of 9
that Kinslow pled guilty to dealing in methamphetamine as a level 2 felony and
the State agreed to dismiss counts of maintaining a common nuisance as a level
6 felony, possession of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor, and possession of
paraphernalia as a class C misdemeanor under Cause No. 883 as well as counts
under Cause No. 871. As an adult, Kinslow was charged with theft as a class D
felony and forgery as a class C felony in 2007, and she pled guilty in 2008 to
theft as a class D felony. In 2009, she was charged with forgery as a class C
felony and theft as a class D felony, but the charges were dismissed in 2010 by
agreement. The PSI indicates that Kinslow previously had part of a suspended
sentence revoked based upon new charges and had to serve a portion of her
suspended sentence incarcerated in Kentucky. She joined the United States
Navy in 2006 and reported that she completed basic training but received an
“other than honorable discharge” after she started using again. Appellant’s
Appendix Volume II at 29.
[14] She reported that she began smoking marijuana when she was about eighteen
years old, smoked it on a regular basis until 2002, tried cocaine for the first time
in 2004 which escalated into a habit, was sober from 2009 to 2016, and tried
methamphetamine in December 2016 and “it quickly went out of control.” Id.
The PSI indicates that her overall risk assessment score places her in the
moderate risk to reoffend category.
[15] After due consideration, we conclude that Kinslow has not sustained her
burden of establishing that the advisory sentence is inappropriate in light of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-738 | September 9, 2019 Page 8 of 9
nature of the offense and her character. 1 To the extent Kinslow asserts that the
trial court erred in not recommending her for the purposeful incarceration
program, we note that the trial court stated that it was not recommending her
for purposeful incarceration and stated: “You may have a drug issue but this is
mainly criminal activity and not addiction.” Transcript Volume II at 108. In
light of the evidence including Mills’s testimony in which he indicated that
Kinslow stated that she sold to twenty-five people in the community, we cannot
say that reversal is warranted on this basis.
[16] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Kinslow’s sentence.
[17] Affirmed.
Altice, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
1
To the extent Kinslow argues that the court abused its discretion by failing to consider her remorse, the
undue hardship on her child imprisonment would cause, and her drug addiction as mitigators, we need not
address this issue because we find that her sentence is not inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). See
Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504, 507 (Ind. 2007) (holding that, in the absence of a proper sentencing order,
Indiana appellate courts may either remand for resentencing or exercise their authority to review the sentence
pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)), reh’g denied; Shelby v. State, 986 N.E.2d 345, 370 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)
(holding that “even if the trial court did abuse its discretion by failing to consider the alleged mitigating factor
of residual doubt, this does not require remand for resentencing”), trans. denied. Even if we were to consider
Kinslow’s abuse of discretion argument, we would not find it to be persuasive in light of the trial court’s
comments and the record.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-738 | September 9, 2019 Page 9 of 9