Court of Appeals of Indian a | Memorandum Decision 86A03

- 1703

- CR

- 720 | O c t o b e r 5 , 2 0 1 7 Page 1 of 4



### MEMORANDUM DECISION 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.
A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Brian A. Karle Ball Eggleston, PC Lafayette, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Larry D. Allen Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana



### I N T H E 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Edward B. Armstrong , Appellant

- Defendant,

v. 

### State of Indiana , Appellee

- Plaintiff O c to ber 5, 2017 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 86A03

- 1703

- CR

- 720 Appeal from the Warren Circuit Court The Honorable Hunter J. Reece, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 86C01

- 1207

- FC

- 62

Baker , Judge .Court of Appeals of Indian a | Memorandum Decision 86A03

- 1703

- CR

- 720 | O c t o b e r 5 , 2 0 1 7 Page 2 of 4

[1] Edward Armstrong appeals the three

- year sentence he rec eived after pleading guilty to T heft , 1 a Class D F elony. 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 contr act w ith JoAnn and Derek Puterbaugh. According to the terms of the contract, Armstrong was to build a pole barn in exch ange for approximately $15,500. The Puterbaughs paid Armstrong in two check installments, $7,000 in Ap r il 2010 and $8,000 in May 2010. Armstrong cashed the checks, b u t did not complete the proje ct. 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 infl uence and Class D felony theft. On Febru ary 21, 2017, Armst rong pleaded guilty to Class D felony theft in exchange for the dismissal of the Class C f elony corrupt b u siness i nfluence charge

. On March 14, 2017, t he 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 Indian a | Memorandum Decision 86A03

- 1703

- CR

- 720 | O c t o b e r 5 , 2 0 1 7 Page 3 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 C ourt 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 outli e rs,’ 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 citat ions omitted).

[5] For a Class D felony conviction, Armst rong faced a sentence of six months to three years with an advisory term of one and one

- half years impriso nment. Ind. Code § 35

- 50

- 2

- 7(a). Armstrong received a three

- year term.

[6] Regarding the nature of the offense, Armstrong took two separate payment s , 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
ex tensive 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 mu ltiple countie s. The offenses include theft, homeCourt of Appeals of Indian a | Memorandum Decision 86A03

- 1703

- CR

- 720 | O c t o b e r 5 , 2 0 1 7 Page 4 of 4

improvement fraud, obtaining property by false representation, and embezzlement.

[8] We acknowledge that Armstrong pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility for his action s . But Armstrong’s extensive crimin al 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 t hese 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.

B a iley, J., and Altice, J., concur

.