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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

STEVEN KNECHT GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Vonderheide & Knecht, P.C. Attorney General of Indiana

Lafayette, Indiana

RICHARD C. WEBSTER

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

MICHAEL S. PARKER )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 91A02-1210-CR-830

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE WHITE SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Robert B. Mrzlack, Judge

Cause No. 91D01-1203-FB-43

August 13, 2013

MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BARNES, Judge
2

Case Summary

Michael Parker appeals his conviction and sentence for Class B felony manufacturing 

methamphetamine. We affirm.

Issues

The issues before the court are:

I. whether there was sufficient evidence that Parker was 

manufacturing methamphetamine; and

II. whether Parker’s sentence is inappropriate. 

Facts

On March 26, 2012, Parker, Joshua Isom, Tanisha Randall, Terry Smothers, Summer 

Engles, Robby Brown, and Brown’s girlfriend were with Christopher and Veronica 

Cunningham at their trailer in Monticello. Veronica and Christopher lived there with their 

three children and allowed friends to periodically stay or congregate at their trailer. Parker, 

who was dating Randall at the time, was going to show Isom how to “wet cook” 

methamphetamine. Tr. pp. 161, 183. Parker brought the methamphetamine lab and some 

ingredients, including pseudoephedrine pills, drain cleaner, and Coleman fuel. The others 

also contributed to the ingredients, and each was to receive a portion of the 

methamphetamine. 

During the remainder of the evening and into the early morning hours of March 27, 

2012, Parker and another person stripped lithium batteries inside the trailer. Parker asked 

Randall to go to Kroger to purchase coffee filters and paper towels. Parker told Isom that he 

needed some of Isom’s anhydrous ammonia contained in a propane tank, which he had stolen 
3

and buried in a field located north of the trailer park. Parker and Isom went into the field to 

pour the anhydrous ammonia into a pitcher with the solvents and then both moved the 

propane tank into the woods located west of the trailer park. The pitcher with the contents 

was left outside the trailer. Christopher, in the meantime, drove Brown and Brown’s 

girlfriend to the residence where his father, Brian Cunningham, lived. 

Veronica smelled something odd inside the trailer and called Christopher to inform 

him that she wanted everyone inside the trailer to leave because they were being loud and the 

children were sleeping. When Randall, Parker, and Isom left the trailer, Veronica locked the 

door. After her phone call, Christopher stopped at a Kroger parking lot and called the White 

County Sheriff’s Department to inform them that a methamphetamine lab was in the field 

north of the trailer park. Four or five officers from the Indiana State Police, including 

Officer Tyler Stinson, were dispatched to the field, but found no methamphetamine lab and 

came upon an empty hole that smelled like anhydrous ammonia. Officer Stinson exchanged 

phone calls with Christopher trying to locate the methamphetamine lab. 

Meanwhile, Randall, Parker, and Isom knocked on the trailer without any response. 

They drove to Brian’s residence to call and ask Christopher to return to the trailer and open 

the door. They returned to the trailer and, once Christopher arrived, they all went inside. 

Christopher and Veronica decided to go to Wal-Mart so he could call the officers back. 

Parker left the trailer sometime after that. The officers eventually made their way from the 

field to the trailer. Officer Stinson spoke to Christopher over the phone while Christopher 

was at Wal-Mart and was granted permission to enter the trailer. Once the door was opened, 
4

the officers immediately noticed “an odor of starting fluid coming from the house,” which 

they associated with a methamphetamine lab. Id. at 102. The officers found Isom, Randall, 

Smothers, Engles, and the three children inside. Isom was pretending to be asleep on the 

couch and was fully clothed with dirt on his pants. They located several ingredients 

associated with a methamphetamine lab inside the trailer. The officers located the pitcher 

containing a white substance outside the trailer and the propane tank hidden in the woods. 

Christopher and Veronica returned to the trailer and called Brian to have him pick up 

the children. Brian, while on his way to the trailer, saw Parker walking over a bridge and 

offered him a ride; Parker declined and said the police were at the trailer, and Brian drove 

off. Officer Charles Morehead later spotted Parker and detained him. Parker was wearing 

dirty pants and boots. After confirming his identity, he was transported back to the trailer. 

The officers investigating the trailer sent the solvents from the pitcher to the lab, which later

tested positive for methamphetamine, although the product was unfinished. 

Parker was charged with Class B felony manufacturing methamphetamine. A jury 

trial found him guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Parker to fifteen years with 

eleven years executed and recommended a treatment program for his addiction. Parker now 

appeals. 

Analysis

I. Sufficiency of Evidence

Parker claims there was insufficient evidence to prove that he was manufacturing 

methamphetamine. When sufficiency of evidence is challenged, “appellate courts must 
5

consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict.” 

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). It is the role of the fact-finder, not the 

appellate court, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it 

is sufficient to support a conviction. Id. When confronted with conflicting evidence, 

appellate courts must consider it “most favorably to the trial court’s ruling.” Id. We affirm 

the conviction unless “no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence “overcome 

every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Id. at 147. “[T]he evidence is sufficient if an 

inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.” Id.

Parker claims that he was not manufacturing methamphetamine on March 26 or 27, 

2012, and the sole evidence used to implicate him is inconsistent testimony from witnesses 

who were at the trailer. He further alleges that all the witnesses “had reasons to lie about 

[him], and something to gain by cooperating with the State.” Appellant’s Br. p. 15. Under 

the “incredible dubiosity rule,” we may “impinge on the jury’s responsibility to judge the 

credibility of the witness only when it has confronted ‘inherently improbable testimony or 

coerced, equivocal, wholly uncorroborated testimony of incredible dubiosity.’” Young v. 

State, 973 N.E.2d 1225, 1226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied (quoting Rodgers v. State, 

422 N.E.2d 1211, 1213 (Ind. 1981)). We will reverse a conviction if a sole witness presents 

inherently improbable testimony and there is no circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s 

guilt. Id.

Not one, but multiple witnesses implicated Parker as the person who was 
6

manufacturing methamphetamine. Christopher identified Parker as the cook and stated that 

Parker and Isom were cooking “in the woods or in the field.” Tr. p. 49. Randall and Isom 

both testified that Parker was going to show Isom how to wet cook methamphetamine; 

Randall further indicated that Parker and Isom were the ones “cooking meth” that night. Id.

at 164. Isom stated that Parker “brought the lab” to cook methamphetamine that evening. Id.

at 181. Veronica indicated that Parker and others were inside the trailer when she “smelled 

something funny.” Id. at 86. Parker’s and Isom’s dirty jeans and boots were corroborating 

evidence that they were both mixing the anhydrous ammonia with the solvents in the field. 

Parker alleges that each witness had inconsistent or false statements in his testimony 

and claims that the witnesses should not be believed. Despite any inconsistencies, the 

testimony regarding Parker’s culpability has not shown to be uncorroborated or incredibly 

dubious, and we will not entertain his invitation to revisit the facts and reweigh the evidence. 

“Inconsistencies in the testimonies of two or more witnesses go to the weight of the evidence 

and do not make the evidence ‘incredible’ as a matter of law.” Manuel v. State, 971 N.E.2d 

1262, 1271 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). The jury had an opportunity to assess the credibility of 

each witness and determined, based on their testimony, that Parker was guilty of 

manufacturing methamphetamine. The evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction. 

II. Inappropriate Sentence

We now assess whether Parker’s sentence is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B) 

in light of his character and the nature of the offense. Although Rule 7(B) does not require 

us to be “extremely” deferential to a trial court’s sentencing decision, we still must give due 
7

consideration to that decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2007). We also understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its 

sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a defendant bears the burden of persuading the 

appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate.” Id.

The principal role of Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, 

and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement of 

the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” 

Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). We “should focus on the forest—the 

aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or 

length of the sentence on any individual count.” Id. Whether a sentence is inappropriate 

ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage 

done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case. Id. at 1224. 

When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence under Rule 7(B), we may consider all 

aspects of the penal consequences imposed by the trial court in sentencing the defendant, 

including whether a portion of the sentence was suspended. Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 

1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010).

Parker claims that “the circumstances of this case are fairly typical for cases involving 

methamphetamine labs” and are “no worse than those involved in any other case[s] of this 

kind.” Appellant’s Br. p. 25. However, “[w]e concentrate less on comparing the facts of this 

case to others, whether real or hypothetical, and more on focusing on the nature, extent, and 

depravity of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced, and what it reveals about 
8

the defendant’s character.” Wells v. State, 904 N.E.2d 265, 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). A 

police officer described that the process of manufacturing methamphetamine includes mixing 

of highly acidic and corrosive chemicals, such as the “very dangerous chemical” anhydrous 

ammonia. Tr. p. 213. Parker played a key role; he was identified as the cook of the 

methamphetamine lab and had others assist in the process under his direction. The others 

who were present contributed to the ingredients; Parker had Randall purchase coffee filters 

and paper towels to be used in the process; Parker told Isom that he needed some of his 

anhydrous ammonia to mix the solvents; and Parker stripped lithium batteries with the help 

of another person. Children were also present during the manufacture of methamphetamine. 

Parker next argues that his fifteen-year sentence is inappropriately excessive in light 

of his character. Parker claims that, despite having a criminal history, mitigating factors 

which include his young age, his addiction to methamphetamine and other drugs, and his 

request to receive drug treatment, should outweigh the aggravating factors. We disagree. 

This is Parker’s second Class B felony conviction involving methamphetamine, the first 

being conspiracy to deal methamphetamine, in which he was given the minimum sentence. 

He has a prior misdemeanor conviction and two juvenile convictions. He committed the 

current offense while he was on probation, which further illustrates his indifference to the 

criminal justice system. Parker did not receive the twenty-year maximum sentence for a 

Class B felony conviction. He, instead, was appropriately given a fifteen-year sentence with 

eleven years executed, and recommended to a treatment program for his methamphetamine 

addiction.
9

Conclusion

The testimony of the State’s witnesses was not incredibly dubious, and sufficient 

evidence existed to prove that Parker was manufacturing methamphetamine. The sentence is 

not inappropriate given Parker’s criminal history and his principal role in manufacturing the 

methamphetamine. We affirm.

Affirmed. 

NAJAM, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.