Case Title: Eckelbarger v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 90S02-1603-CR-157

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2016-03-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
Jeremy K. Nix 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Gregory F. Zoeller  
Matheny, Hahn, Denman & Nix, LLP 
 
 
 
Attorney General of Indiana 
Huntington, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Karl M. Scharnberg 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 90S02-1603-CR-157 
 
RONALD L. ECKELBARGER,   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant (Defendant below), 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    v. 
 
STATE OF INDIANA,    
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Plaintiff below).  
 
 
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Wells Circuit Court, No. 90C01-1406-FB-5  
The Honorable Kenton W. Kiracofe, Judge  
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 90A02-1503-CR-188 
_________________________________ 
 
March 29, 2016 
 
Per Curiam. 
Ronald Eckelbarger had been dating Rebecca Markley more than two years when Markley 
tested positive for methamphetamine, in violation of her probation.  In order to avoid incarceration, 
Markley became a police informant.  In that capacity, Markley provided Eckelbarger 
pseudoephedrine pills on both June 6 and June 13, 2014, and received methamphetamine in return 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Mar 29 2016, 1:13 pm
 
 
several hours later.  On June 14, 2014, officers executed a search warrant at Eckelbarger’s home 
and recovered precursors for the manufacture of methamphetamine as well as evidence of previous 
manufacturing activity.  Eckelbarger was charged with and convicted of two counts of class B 
felony dealing in methamphetamine (by delivery) (Counts I and II), one count of class B felony 
dealing in methamphetamine (by manufacture) (Count III), and one count of class D felony 
possession of precursors with intent to manufacture methamphetamine (Count IV).1 
 
The trial court sentenced Eckelbarger to sixteen years with four years suspended on each 
of Counts I and II, to be served concurrently.  The trial court sentenced Eckelbarger to sixteen 
years with four years suspended on Count III, and three years on Count IV, to run concurrently 
with each other but consecutive to the sentences on Counts I and II.  Eckelbarger thus received an 
aggregate sentence of thirty-two years, with eight years suspended to probation.  
 
Eckelbarger appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.  Eckelbarger v. State, --- N.E.3d 
---, 2015 WL 8477835 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2015).  Judge Riley dissented in part, and would 
have revised Eckelbarger’s sentence downward.  Eckelbarger seeks transfer, contending, among 
other things, that his aggregate thirty-two year sentence is inappropriate. 
  
Even where a trial court has not abused its discretion in sentencing, the Indiana Constitution 
authorizes independent appellate review and revision of a trial court’s sentencing decision.  See 
Ind. Const. art 7, §§ 4, 6; Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007).  Appellate courts 
implement this authority through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that we may revise 
a sentence if “after due consideration of the trial court’s decision” we find “the sentence is 
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.”  Ind. Appellate 
Rule 7(B).   
 
We have previously observed that “[c]onsecutive sentences are not appropriate when the 
State sponsors a series of virtually identical offenses.”  Gregory v. State, 644 N.E.2d 543, 544 (Ind. 
1994).  Consistent with this precedent, the trial court in this case ordered the sentences on Counts 
                                                 
1 Respectively, Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(a)(1)(C);  I.C. § 35-48-4-1.1(a)(1)(A); and I.C. § 35-48-4-14.5(e) 
(2008 Repl.). 
 
 
I and II to be served concurrently.  This same reasoning informs our deliberation and collective 
sentiment that, under the particular circumstances of this case, the sentences for Counts III and IV 
(dealing in methamphetamine by manufacture and possession of precursors)—convictions 
supported by evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant procured based on the dealing 
methamphetamine by delivery counts—should be served concurrently to the sentences on Counts 
I and II.      
 
Pursuant to our authority under Appellate Rule 7(B), we find that an aggregate sentence of 
thirty-two years is inappropriate.  Accordingly, we grant transfer and revise Eckelbarger’s 
sentences on Counts III and IV to run concurrently with his sentences on Counts I and II, for an 
aggregate sentence of sixteen years.  In all other respects we summarily affirm the Court of 
Appeals’ decision.  See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).  We remand this case to the trial court with 
instructions to enter a revised sentencing order consistent with this opinion.   
 
  
         
Rush, C.J., and Rucker and David, JJ., concur. 
Dickson and Massa, JJ., dissent, believing the extraordinary relief of appellate sentence revision 
is not warranted in this case.