Member Login

Lost your password?

Not a member yet? Sign Up!

Forty-two Year Old Mother Sentenced to Ten Years in Prison for Manufacturing Methamphetamine

January 2, 2014
By

 

  01/03/14 Marie Graham, 42, of Plymouth, was sentenced today (January 2, 2014) in Marshall Superior Court No. 1 to 10 years imprisonment for manufacturing methamphetamine.  In open court, Graham earlier had admitted that on July 22, 2013, she participated with others in acquiring pseudoephedrine based products for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine.  Court documents noted numerous items associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine were found at Graham’s residence on North 4th St. in Plymouth after the execution of a search warrant on July 22.  Numerous other persons were arrested at the residence, including two of Graham’s adult sons.  Their cases remain pending and until resolved, they are presumed innocent until or unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  

Judge Robert O. Bowen approved an agreement reached between Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Nelson Chipman and defense attorney Ed Ruiz, which provides for a sentence at the Indiana Department of Corrections of 10 years of imprisonment for manufacturing methamphetamine, as a Class B felony.  The charge was originally a Class A felony as it occurred within 1000 feet of a housing complex.  In exchange for the plea of guilty, charges of conspiracy, possession of methamphetamine and possession of paraphernalia were dismissed.  Two years of the sentence was suspended, and purposeful incarceration was made a term. 

The case began on May 1, 2013 with an anonymous phone call reporting Marie Graham was manufacturing methamphetamine in the bedroom of her home on N. Fourth St..  The caller stated that several people in the residence consume the methamphetamine as well as sell it to other individual visitors.  The caller also warned that the house and bedroom were protected by several pit bulls.

An investigation began which included officers from the Indiana State Police and the Marshall County UNIT (Undercover Narcotics Investigation Team).  Plymouth Police Officer John Weir also assisted in the investigation, which revealed occupants of the residence had been engaged in extensive purchasing of pseudoephedrine based products for an extended period of time.  Also revealed during the investigation were the names of several individuals with known methamphetamine backgrounds visiting the residence.  One individual revealed that the Fourth Street address was the source of methamphetamine to feed the addiction of this person’s spouse. 

As a result, a detailed affidavit was drafted in support of a search warrant of the residence.  Judge Bowen approved the search warrant in the early morning hours of July 22.   Officers from the State Police, Plymouth Police and Marshall County Police executed the search warrant and found numerous items related to the manufacture of methamphetamine, including the product itself.  The dogs proved to be tame enough to capture and the Marshall County Humane Society was called to take custody.

Chipman congratulated “the cooperative efforts of the three departments that put an end to a cook operation that had been a source of meth in our community.”  In addition, Chipman praised the anonymous caller that triggered the successful investigation.  “There is a reason the caller did not want to give his or her name,,,,,,,, but I would like them to know that without their courage, none of this would be possible.  We are all grateful.”

WordPress Plugin Share Bookmark Email

One Response to “ Forty-two Year Old Mother Sentenced to Ten Years in Prison for Manufacturing Methamphetamine ”

  1. Thor on January 3, 2014 at 2:29 pm

    Congratulations on another successful prosecution. Too bad they were not caught before we ended up with adult children in this situation. They are now felons in waiting all on their own.

    In your disclaimer I believe the requirement to be “proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” is only a requirement in capital offenses. Being found guilty by the court or jury only requires a preponderance of evidence.

    I do believe however that unless you’re personally familiar with the defendants or are present in the court for the prosecution it should be left up to those who are.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.