Vera D. Alsadi v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: DERICK W. STEELE Deputy Public Defender Kokomo, Indiana GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana ZACHARY J. STOCK Special Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FILED Nov 30 2010, 9:54 am CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court VERA D. ALSADI, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 34A02-1004-CR-561 APPEAL FROM THE HOWARD SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Stephen M. Jessup, Judge Cause No. 34D02-0810-FC-00222 November 30, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BAILEY, Judge Case Summary Vera D. Alsadi ( Alsadi ) appeals her three-year sentence for Theft, as a Class D felony,1 presenting the sole issue of whether the sentence is inappropriate. We revise the sentence to two years and remand. Facts and Procedural History Alsadi possessed personal checks belonging to two other individuals, which she used to purchase pizza and other food items worth approximately $180.00. Alsadi was charged with four counts of Forgery and one count of Theft. Ultimately, she pled guilty to one count of Theft, the four counts of Forgery were dismissed, and she was sentenced to three years imprisonment. This appeal ensued. Discussion and Decision Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), this 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. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). In performing our review, we assess the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). A defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met th[e] inappropriateness standard of review. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007) (quoting Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)). 1 Ind. Code ยง 35-43-4-2(a). 2 As to the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. Here, the record discloses that Alsadi s offense of Theft involved a relatively small pecuniary loss. However, there were multiple victims. As to the character of the offender, Alsadi s decision to plead guilty has some impact upon our analysis. A decision to plead guilty has relatively minimal impact where the defendant has received a significant benefit from the plea, and therefore it does not reflect as favorably upon [her] character as it might otherwise. Fields v. State, 852 N.E.2d 1030, 1034 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. Here, however, the dismissed counts involved the same transactions as Count V, to which Alsadi pled guilty, and thus she did not receive a significant benefit from the dismissal. Her decision to plead guilty in an open plea reflects favorably upon her character. However, we also observe that Alsadi has failed to benefit from prior rehabilitative efforts. She was convicted of Possession of Cocaine, as a Class B felony, in 1999 and was convicted of Maintaining a Common Nuisance, as a Class D felony, in 2007. She had smoked marijuana as recently as one week before the presentence investigation report was compiled. In sum, this is Alsadi s third felony conviction, although the first of the convictions is relatively remote. The instant offense involved multiple victims. However, Alsadi pled guilty in an open plea and the amount of pecuniary loss was small. In light of Alsadi s 3 character and the nature of her offense, we revise Alsadi s sentence to two years. We remand to the trial court for issuance of a revised sentencing order consistent with this opinion. Revised and remanded. RILEY, J., concurs. KIRSCH, J., dissents without opinion. 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.