Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1610-CR-2343 | April 5, 2017 Page 1 of 6

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

Joel C. Wieneke

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Tyler G. Banks

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Luke Paul Eckrich,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 5, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

84A01-1610-CR-2343

Appeal from the Vigo Superior 

Court

The Honorable Michael J. Lewis, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

84D06-1511-F6-2893

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1610-CR-2343 | April 5, 2017 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary

[1] Following a bench trial, Luke Paul Eckrich (“Eckrich”) was convicted of 

Possession of Child Pornography, as a Level 6 felony,1 and the charge was 

enhanced because Eckrich was found to be a repeat sexual offender.2 Eckrich 

now challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.

[2] We affirm the conviction and remand for correction of the sentencing order.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Around 9:30 p.m. on September 29, 2015, Eckrich was using a library computer 

at Indiana State University. Later that night, a library patron saw Eckrich 

viewing child pornography on the computer. The patron took photos of 

Eckrich and alerted staff. Someone contacted the police.

[4] Officer Michael Eldred (“Officer Eldred”) of the Indiana State University Police

responded to the library around 12:37 a.m. Officer Eldred approached Eckrich, 

and could see that Eckrich was viewing child pornography. When Eckrich saw 

Officer Eldred, Eckrich immediately turned off the computer. Eckrich was 

warned that he was trespassing, and the police later returned to collect the 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-42-4-4(c). We refer throughout to the substantive provisions of the Indiana Code in effect at 

the time of Eckrich’s offense.

2

I.C. § 35-50-2-14.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1610-CR-2343 | April 5, 2017 Page 3 of 6

computer. A forensic examination of the computer confirmed that Eckrich had 

accessed child pornography websites.

[5] On November 24, 2015, the State charged Eckrich with one count of Possession 

of Child Pornography. The State also filed an enhancement, alleging that 

Eckrich was a repeat sexual offender. A bench trial was conducted on July 29, 

2016, and Eckrich stipulated to certain facts. The trial court took the matter 

under advisement and later found Eckrich guilty as charged.

[6] A sentencing hearing was held on September 12, 2016. The trial court 

sentenced Eckrich to one year for Possession of Child Pornography and 

enhanced the sentence by one year, purportedly imposing the enhancement as a 

consecutive sentence to that of Possession of Child Pornography.

[7] Eckrich now appeals.3

 Discussion and Decision

[8] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we 

neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility. Drane v. State, 867 

N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We consider only the evidence supporting the 

judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from that evidence. 

Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). We must affirm the 

 

3

Subsequent to filing his appeal, Eckrich filed a motion requesting that this Court accept his supplemental 

appendix. We hereby grant this motion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1610-CR-2343 | April 5, 2017 Page 4 of 6

conviction if there is “substantial evidence of probative value supporting each 

element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the 

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 

1066 (Ind. 2015).

[9] To convict Eckrich of possession of child pornography, the State had to prove 

that Eckrich “knowingly or intentionally possess[ed] . . . any pictorial 

representation” of child pornography. I.C. § 35-42-4-4(c). In challenging the 

sufficiency of the evidence, Eckrich does not dispute that he intentionally 

accessed and viewed websites that contained child pornography. Rather, 

Eckrich argues that his actions did not amount to possession under Indiana law.

[10] To prove that a defendant possessed an item, the State may prove either actual 

possession or constructive possession. Sargent v. State, 27 N.E.3d 729, 733 (Ind. 

2015). Actual possession occurs when a person has direct physical control over 

an item. Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011). Constructive 

possession occurs when a “person has (1) the capability to maintain dominion 

and control over the item; and (2) the intent to maintain dominion and control 

over it.” Id.

[11] Eckrich focuses his argument on a computer caching process that automatically 

stored images from websites he visited. Those images were retrieved during the 

forensic analysis of the computer. Eckrich argues that there was no evidence 

that he knew of the caching process or that he controlled any of the images 

stored through that process. Here, however, no such evidence was necessary. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1610-CR-2343 | April 5, 2017 Page 5 of 6

Rather, the stipulated evidence indicates that Eckrich intentionally pointed a 

web browser to certain websites containing images of child pornography, and

intentionally viewed the pornographic images therein. In doing so, Eckrich

controlled when images of child pornography would appear on the computer 

screen, and for how long. Moreover, while an image was on the screen, 

Eckrich “was free to use the image as he desired.” (Appellee’s Br. at 11.) 

These actions constitute sufficient control over the pornographic images such 

that Eckrich possessed them under Indiana law. Thus, the evidence is sufficient 

to support Eckrich’s conviction.

[12] Finally, the State directs us to a brief sentencing matter. That is, in sentencing 

Eckrich, the trial court purportedly ordered that Eckrich serve consecutive 

sentences for the possession conviction and the repeat sexual offender finding. 

However, a repeat sexual offender finding does not itself generate a separate 

conviction for which a defendant can be separately sentenced, rather it allows 

the trial court to impose an enhanced sentence on a proper conviction. See, e.g.,

Young v. State, 57 N.E.3d 857, 860-61 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. The 

instant sentencing order is therefore inaccurate. Accordingly, on remand, the 

trial court should amend its sentencing order to reflect that Eckrich’s possession 

sentence is enhanced by one year, with no separate consecutive sentence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1610-CR-2343 | April 5, 2017 Page 6 of 6

Conclusion

[13] The evidence was sufficient to support Eckrich’s conviction of possession of 

child pornography, but the sentencing order inaccurately characterized the 

repeat sexual offender enhancement as a separate consecutive sentence.

[14] Affirmed and remanded.

Vaidik, C.J., and Robb, J., concur.