Crystal Summerlot v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. Aug 06 2010, 8:51 am CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: CRAIG PERSINGER Marion, Indiana GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana ZACHARY J. STOCK Special Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA CRYSTAL SUMMERLOT, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 85A02-1002-CR-303 APPEAL FROM THE WABASH CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Robert R. McCallen III, Judge Cause No. 85C01-0808-FC-99 August 6, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BRADFORD, Judge Following a jury trial, Appellant-Defendant Crystal Summerlot was convicted of two counts of Class C felony Dealing in a Schedule IV Controlled Substance, 1 for which she received an aggregate advisory sentence of four years in the Department of Correction with one and one-half years suspended to probation. Upon appeal, Summerlot contends that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of her offenses and her character. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Following his February 19, 2008 drug overdose, Joshua Napier contacted authorities, indicated that Summerlot would sell him drugs, and agreed to serve as a confidential informant ( CI ) for the Wabash County Drug Task Force. On April 17, 2008, Napier, acting as a CI, purchased five Soma carisoprodol pills from Summerlot at her home in Lagro. Carisoprodol is a Schedule IV controlled substance. Again on June 11, 2008, Napier purchased six Soma carisoprodol pills from Summerlot at her home. At the time of the June 11 transaction, Summerlot, who had six children, was pregnant. At least some of Summerlot s children were in her home at the time of both transactions. On August 29, 2008, the State charged Summerlot with two counts of Class C felony dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance. Following a January 14 and 15, 2010 jury trial, in which Summerlot admitted to having given Napier pills but claimed to have done so under duress, the jury found her guilty as charged. In sentencing Summerlot to concurrent advisory four-year sentences on each count, with one and onehalf years suspended to probation on each, the trial court was particularly concerned with 1 Ind. Code ยง 35-48-4-3(a)(1) (2007). 2 the fact that Summerlot had engaged in the instant drug transactions in front of her children. This appeal follows. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Upon appeal, Summerlot claims that Napier not she initiated the transactions at issue and points to the facts that she has seven young children and no criminal history in support of her request for a minimum sentence. Article VII, Sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorize[] independent appellate review and revision of a sentence imposed by the trial court. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007) (quoting Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006) (emphasis and internal quotations omitted)). Such appellate authority is implemented through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that the Court may 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 exercise deference to a trial court s sentencing decision, both because Rule 7(B) requires that we give due consideration to that decision and because we recognize the unique perspective a trial court has when making sentencing decisions. Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d 858, 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). It is the defendant s burden to demonstrate that her sentence is inappropriate. Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1080. The nature of Summerlot s offenses involved dealing drugs in front of her young children, exposing them not only to criminal activity in their own home but also by her own admission to dangerous persons, also in their own home. We have little question 3 that Summerlot s young children need her, but they need her to be a responsible and lawabiding parent. The fact that Summerlot continues to place a large part of the blame for her actions on Napier, even after the jury rejected her duress argument, does not reflect highly upon her character, nor does it suggest that she is willing to accept responsibility for her actions or is motivated to improve her life for the sake of her many children. While Summerlot s lack of criminal history is notable, it does not alter her serious lapses in judgment in the instant case. With so many young and impressionable lives hanging in the balance, we are unpersuaded that Summerlot s repeated willingness to place these lives at risk is somehow minimal or warrants a reduced sentence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. DARDEN, J., and BROWN, J., concur. 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.