Case Title: Barber v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 19S-CR-329

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2019-05-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 19S-CR-329 
Kevin Michael Barber, 
Appellant-Defendant, 
–v– 
State of Indiana, 
Appellee-Plaintiff. 
Argued: April 11, 2019 | Decided: May 29, 2019 
Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court, No. 53C02-1208-FC-788 
The Honorable Marc R. Kellams, Judge 
On Petition to Transfer from the Court of Appeals, 
No. 18A-CR-308 
Per Curiam Opinion 
All Justices concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
May 29 2019, 2:09 pm
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-CR-329 | May 29, 2019 
 
Page 2 of 4 
Per Curiam. 
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Kevin Michael 
Barber’s motion to modify his sentence. We also affirm the trial court, but 
for a different reason.   
Barber was charged with Class C felony child molesting, Class D felony  
performing sexual conduct in the presence of a minor, and Class D felony 
dissemination of matter harmful to minors. In December 2012, Barber pled 
guilty pursuant to a plea agreement providing for an eight-year sentence 
for the Class C felony and a two-year sentence for each of the Class D 
felonies. The sentences on the Class D felonies were entirely suspended to 
probation and were to be served concurrently to each other but 
consecutively to the Class C felony sentence. The trial court accepted the 
plea agreement and sentenced Barber according to its terms.   
In November 2015, Barber was released on parole. In October 2017, he 
filed a motion to modify his sentence on the Class C felony, citing Indiana 
Code section 35-38-1-17 and arguing “the terms of his current sentence 
have placed an unnecessary burden on [him] as he re-enters everyday 
society and strives to contribute positively to the community.” 
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, pp. 191, 219.) The State opposed the motion. The 
trial court denied the motion to modify Barber’s sentence.  On Barber’s 
appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. See Barber v. State, 
115 N.E.3d 508 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).   
Indiana Code section 35-38-1-17 governs the trial court’s authority to 
reduce or suspend a sentence after the defendant has begun serving the 
sentence.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of 
Barber’s motion to modify on grounds the statute does not authorize the 
court to modify a sentence after the person has been released on parole. 
However, we conclude the question of modification in this case is 
governed by the subsections of Indiana Code 35-38-1-17 addressing a 
“violent criminal.”    
(c) Except as provided in subsections (k) and (m), this section 
does not apply to a violent criminal. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-CR-329 | May 29, 2019 
 
Page 3 of 4 
(d) As used in this section, “violent criminal” means a person 
convicted of any of the following offenses: 
* * * 
(10) Child molesting (IC 35-42-4-3). 
* * * 
(k) This subsection applies to a convicted person who is a 
violent criminal. A convicted person who is a violent criminal 
may, not later than three hundred sixty-five (365) days from the 
date of sentencing, file one (1) petition for sentence 
modification under this section without the consent of the 
prosecuting attorney. After the elapse of the three hundred 
sixty-five (365) day period, a violent criminal may not file a 
petition for sentence modification without the consent of the 
prosecuting attorney.  
* * * 
I.C. § 35-38-1-17. 
 Barber was convicted of child molesting and is therefore a “violent 
criminal.” His motion to modify is governed by subsection (k), and 
because Barber filed his motion more than 365 days after he was 
sentenced, he needed the prosecutor’s consent to modification before the 
court could modify his sentence.  Barber did not have that consent.  
We grant transfer, thereby vacating the Court of Appeals opinion, see 
Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A), and affirm the trial court.  
         
All Justices concur. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-CR-329 | May 29, 2019 
 
Page 4 of 4 
A TT O R N E Y F O R  A PP E LLA N T 
Andrew Penman 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL L E E 
Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 
Attorney General of Indiana 
Ellen H. Meilaender 
Deputy Attorney General 
Indianapolis, Indiana