Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-729 | July 28, 2020 Page 1 of 8

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

Justin R. Wall

Wall Legal Services

Huntington, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Steven Hosler

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Larry Eugene Reust, Jr.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

July 28, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-729

Appeal from the Huntington 

Circuit Court

The Honorable Davin G. Smith, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

35C01-1910-F3-338

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-729 | July 28, 2020 Page 2 of 8

[1] Larry Reust, Jr., appeals his conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial 

court for Level 3 Felony Possession of a Narcotic Drug,1 arguing that the 

evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and that the sentence was 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Finding the 

evidence sufficient and the sentence not inappropriate, we affirm. 

Facts

[2] On October 22, 2019, Huntington County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Jamin 

Sands transported Reust to the Huntington County Jail to be booked for an

unrelated crime. While Deputy Sands was reading Reust the arrest warrant, he 

noticed that Reust “appeared to be adjusting his pants.” Tr. Vol. III p. 114.

Then, Special Deputy Joshua Platt took Reust to a dressing room so that he 

could change into a jail uniform. Deputy Platt decided to strip search Reust by 

asking him to “bend over and squat and cough.” Id. at 119. After Reust twice 

failed to complete the procedure, he eventually did what Deputy Platt 

requested.

[3] It was at this point that Deputy Platt “was able to see the end of a plastic baggie 

near his rectum.” Id. Deputy Platt asked Reust to remove the baggie and hand it 

to him; Reust complied. Deputy Platt handed the plastic baggie to Deputy 

Sands, and while doing so, he noticed that the plastic baggie contained a 

“brown substance.” Id. at 120. Deputy Sands then placed the baggie in a secure 

1

Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6(a), -6(d)(2).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-729 | July 28, 2020 Page 3 of 8

evidence locker and eventually sent it off to the Indiana State Police Laboratory 

to be tested. A representative from the lab reported that the substance was a 

combination of heroin and tramadol and that it weighed a total of 13.55 grams. 

[4] On October 23, 2019, the State charged Reust with one count of Level 3 felony 

possession of a narcotic drug due to a prior conviction for dealing in a 

controlled substance. The State also alleged that Reust was an habitual 

offender. On November 3, 2019, Special Deputy Sidney Jeffers spoke with 

Reust on an unrelated matter, and during that conversation, Reust told Deputy 

Jeffers that “when he came to the jail—initially came into the jail—that he had 

brought heroin inside of his butt checks.” Id. at 150-51.

[5] Following Reust’s March 10-11, 2020, trial, the jury found him guilty as 

charged. Additionally, Reust admitted to being an habitual offender. On March 

24, 2020, the trial court sentenced Reust to twelve years in the Department of 

Correction (DOC) for the Level 3 felony conviction, with an additional thirteen 

years imposed for the habitual offender enhancement, for an aggregate term of 

twenty-five years. Reust now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Sufficiency of Evidence

[6] First, Reust argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction 

for Level 3 felony possession of a narcotic drug. When reviewing the sufficiency 

of the evidence supporting a conviction, we must affirm if the probative 

evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom could have allowed a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-729 | July 28, 2020 Page 4 of 8

reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). It is not our job to reweigh 

the evidence or to judge the credibility of the witnesses, and we consider any 

conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court’s ruling. Wright v. State, 

828 N.E.2d 904, 906 (Ind. 2005). 

[7] To convict Reust of Level 3 felony possession of a narcotic drug, the State was 

required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Reust, without having a valid 

prescription or order, knowingly or intentionally possessed a pure or 

adulterated narcotic drug, that the amount of the drug was between ten and 

twenty-eight grams, and that an enhancing circumstance applies. I.C. § 35-48-4-

6(a), -6(d)(2). Reust contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that (1) 

he knowingly possessed the narcotics; and (2) the amount of the drug was 

between ten and twenty-eight grams.

[8] First, regarding the knowingly element, “[a] person engages in conduct 

‘knowingly’ if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high 

probability that he is doing so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(b). It is undisputed that 

when booking Reust, Deputy Sands noticed that Reust “appeared to be 

adjusting his pants.” Tr. Vol. III p. 114. Later, during Reust’s strip search, 

Deputy Platt asked Reust to turn his head and cough. After two failed attempts, 

Reust eventually complied with Deputy Platt’s instructions, which caused 

Deputy Platt to notice the end of a plastic baggie sticking out of Reust’s anus. 

Later on, Reust admitted to Deputy Jeffers that “when he came to the jail—
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-729 | July 28, 2020 Page 5 of 8

initially came into the jail—that he had brought heroin inside of his butt 

checks.” Id. at 150-51.

[9] Based on this evidence, we believe a reasonable factfinder could conclude that 

Reust knowingly possessed the narcotics. Not only were the drugs stashed in a 

very intimate area over which no other person besides Reust would have had 

control, but Reust also confessed to bringing the narcotics with him when he 

initially appeared in jail. In other words, it can reasonably be deduced that 

Reust was aware of a high probability that he possessed narcotics. Thus, given 

Reust’s actions during his arrest, the location of the hidden drugs, and his 

confession, we find that the evidence was sufficient to prove the “knowingly” 

element.

[10] Next, regarding the amount/weight of the drugs in question, Reust argues that 

“it should have been beholden upon the State to prove exactly how much 

controlled substance was in the baggie as it is the precise amount of controlled 

substance that is indicative of the harm to society that would be inflicted upon it 

by the defendant. The State simply failed to do so.” Appellant’s Br. p. 17.

However, the State has done nothing but present uncontroverted evidence that 

the narcotics in question weighed 13.55 grams. Reust’s demand that we

reevaluate the narcotics themselves, their amount, and whether the lab report 

was credible amounts to nothing more than a request that we reweigh the 

evidence, which we may not do. A reasonable trier of fact could have 

determined that the amount of the drug in question weighed between ten and 

twenty-eight grams based solely on the results from the laboratory report.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-729 | July 28, 2020 Page 6 of 8

[11] In sum, the evidence is sufficient. 

II. Appropriateness

[12] Next, Reust argues that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate 

in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

[13] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) states that a “Court may revise a sentence . . . if, 

after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds that the 

sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character 

of the offender.” The question is not whether another sentence is more 

appropriate, but whether the defendant’s specific sentence is inappropriate. 

Steinberg v. State, 941 N.E.2d 515, 535 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). In determining 

whether the sentence is inappropriate, we will consider numerous factors such 

as culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to 

others, and a “myriad [of] other factors that come to light in a given case.” 

Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). The defendant bears the 

burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 

N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

[14] For someone who commits the offense of Level 3 felony possession of a 

narcotic drug, the maximum sentence is sixteen years, and the minimum 

sentence is three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5(b). The advisory sentence is nine 

years. Id. Further, for an habitual offender enhancement as applied to someone 

convicted of a Level 3 felony, the trial court may impose an additional fixed 

term of between six and twenty years. I.C. § 35-50-2-8(i)(1). Here, the trial court 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-729 | July 28, 2020 Page 7 of 8

imposed a twelve-year term for Reust’s Level 3 felony conviction, with an 

additional thirteen years imposed for the habitual offender enhancement, for an 

aggregate twenty-five-year term to be served in the DOC.

[15] First, as to the nature of the offense, Reust went to great lengths to conceal 

contraband from both Deputies Sands and Platt. Not only did Reust refuse to 

comply with Deputy Platt’s instructions the first two times, but he also hid 

illegal narcotics in a very invasive and private area of his body. We admit that 

the circumstances surrounding Reust’s commission of this crime were not the 

most extreme or egregious. But, when considered in tandem of our analysis of 

Reust’s character, we find that the nature of the offense does not render Reust’s 

sentence inappropriate.

[16] More to that point, as to Reust’s character, Reust has previously been convicted 

of possession of marijuana, possession of cocaine, possession of a controlled 

substance, dealing in cocaine, operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and 

possession of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of school property. 

Additionally, he currently has twenty-three criminal charges pending against 

him from four different felony cases. See Bailey v. State, 763 N.E.2d 998, 1004 

(Ind. 2002) (holding that a history of criminal activity can reflect poorly on a 

defendant’s character at sentencing); see also Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 

874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that “it is appropriate to consider such a 

[criminal] record as a poor reflection on the defendant’s character, because it 

may reveal that he . . . has not been deterred even after having been subjected to 

the police authority of the State[]”). The trial court noted Reust’s serious 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-729 | July 28, 2020 Page 8 of 8

criminal history during sentencing when it said that the “[a]ggravating 

circumstances are the substantial volume of [Reust’s] criminal history as well as 

the substantial nature of the crimes involved in [Reust’s] criminal history.” 

Appealed Order p. 1.

[17] While we recognize that the trial court imposed a sentence for Reust’s Level 3 

felony conviction above the advisory sentence, the sheer weight and volume of 

Reust’s criminal background—combined with the sobering fact that Reust was 

charged with some twenty-three crimes after having been charged with the 

current offense—lead us to conclude that Reust’s sentence was not 

inappropriate. And the crimes with which Reust was charged all fall into the 

realm of criminal drug possession, use, intoxication, or distribution. This 

apparent disregard for the rule of law and an unwillingness to rehabilitate his 

behavior demonstrate that Reust has no remorse for the damage he has caused 

to himself and his surrounding community. Thus, we find that Reust’s 

character does not render his sentence inappropriate.

[18] In sum, we will not revise Reust’s sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 

7(B).

[19] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.