Edward B. Armstrong v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 5, 2017
• Docket: 86A03-1703-CR-720
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 05 2017, 9:21 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 Brian A. Karle Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Ball Eggleston, PC Attorney General of Indiana Lafayette, Indiana Larry D. Allen Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Edward B. Armstrong, October 5, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 86A03-1703-CR-720 v. Appeal from the Warren Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Hunter J. Reece, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 86C01-1207-FC-62

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 86A03-1703-CR-720 | October 5, 2017 Page 1 of 4 [1] Edward Armstrong appeals the three-year sentence he received after pleading

guilty to Theft,1 a Class D Felony. Armstrong argues that the fully-executed

sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

Finding that the sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts

[2] In April 2010, Armstrong entered into a contract with JoAnn and Derek

Puterbaugh. According to the terms of the contract, Armstrong was to build a

pole barn in exchange for approximately $15,500. The Puterbaughs paid

Armstrong in two check installments, $7,000 in April 2010 and $8,000 in May

2010. Armstrong cashed the checks, but did not complete the project. During

this same time, Armstrong received money for similar projects in Tippecanoe

County that he also did not complete.

[3] On July 13, 2012, the State charged Armstrong with Class C felony corrupt

business influence and Class D felony theft. On February 21, 2017, Armstrong

pleaded guilty to Class D felony theft in exchange for the dismissal of the Class

C felony corrupt business influence charge. On March 14, 2017, the trial court

sentenced Armstrong to three years imprisonment. Armstrong now appeals.

1 Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2. We apply the version of the statute in place at the time Armstrong committed the offense.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 86A03-1703-CR-720 | October 5, 2017 Page 2 of 4 Discussion and Decision

[4] Armstrong argues that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate

in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule

7(B) gives this Court the authority to revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in

light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. We must

“conduct [this] review with substantial deference and give ‘due consideration’

to the trial court’s decision – since the ‘principal role of [our] review is to

attempt to leaven the outliers,’ and not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’

sentence. . . .” Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014) (quoting

Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. 2013)) (internal citations

omitted).

[5] For a Class D felony conviction, Armstrong faced a sentence of six months to

three years with an advisory term of one and one-half years imprisonment.

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(a). Armstrong received a three-year term.

[6] Regarding the nature of the offense, Armstrong took two separate payments,

equaling almost $15,500, for a project he did not even start. He stated that he

knew there was a high probability that he would not uphold his end of the

contract, and that he took the money anyway.

[7] With respect to Armstrong’s character, he is fifty-six years old and has an

extensive criminal history that dates back to 1977. His record includes nearly

thirty-nine different felony cases and four misdemeanor cases across several

different states and multiple counties. The offenses include theft, home Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 86A03-1703-CR-720 | October 5, 2017 Page 3 of 4 improvement fraud, obtaining property by false representation, and

embezzlement.

[8] We acknowledge that Armstrong pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility for

his actions. But Armstrong’s extensive criminal history shows that despite

many chances over many years, he is unable and unwilling to abide by the rule

of law. Additionally, he has failed to make required restitution payments in

other cases, showing a lack of desire to reform his behavior. Under these

circumstances, we find that the three-year sentence imposed by the trial court is

not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and Armstrong’s

character.

[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 86A03-1703-CR-720 | October 5, 2017 Page 4 of 4