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

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Brian A. Karle

Ball Eggleston, PC

Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

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

October 5, 2017

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