Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1708-CR-1938 | May 25, 2018 Page 1 of 10

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Leanna Weissmann

Lawrenceburg, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Tyler G. Banks

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

James R. Eisert,

Appellant-Defendant,

v. 

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff

May 25, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

69A01-1708-CR-1938 

Appeal from the Ripley Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Ryan King, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

69C01-1603-F5-11 

May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1708-CR-1938 | May 25, 2018 Page 2 of 10

[1] James R. Eisert appeals his six-year sentence for Level 5 felony stalking1 and 

Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

2

 He argues that sentence is 

inappropriate in light of his character and offenses. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Eisert was married to G.E., and together they had two children, L.E. and M.E. 

By December 2015, Eisert and G.E. were estranged, L.E. was at college, and 

M.E. lived with G.E. On December 26, 2015, Eisert battered G.E. and M.E., 

and he threatened to hurt G.E. and to kill G.E., M.E., and L.E. Eisert was 

arrested, and the State charged him with multiple counts of battery on 

December 30, 2015. The trial court released Eisert on bond pending trial and 

ordered him to have no-contact with his ex-wife or children, but on January 1, 

2016, Eisert was arrested for violating that no contact order. The court once 

again released Eisert from custody and entered another no contact order as to

G.E. and M.E. 

[3] Following the violence in December 2015, G.E. consulted with workers at a 

domestic violence shelter to develop a safety plan for herself and her children.

G.E. changed the locks on all the doors to her home and added two additional 

locks to each door. She installed security cameras that recorded what was 

 

1 Ind. Code § 35-45-10-5 (2014). 

2 Ind. Code § 35-46-1-15.1(1) (2014). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1708-CR-1938 | May 25, 2018 Page 3 of 10

happening at her house’s back door and basement door. She and M.E. changed 

their routines to ensure their arrival and exit at work and school, respectively,

were monitored by others. 

[4] On February 5, 2016, after 10:30 p.m., Eisert climbed onto the roof of G.E.’s 

house, entered the attic through a window, and then used razor blades to cut his 

way through the dry wall between the attic and the living space. G.E. was 

home alone, and when she heard someone trying to break into the house, she 

called M.E. and then called 911. G.E. was on the line with the 911 operator 

when she saw Eisert emerge. G.E. screamed repeatedly and told the operator

she was running outside her house, but then the phone went dead. G.E. tried to 

run out the front door, but Eisert grabbed her by the hair, pulled her to the 

garage, and tried to force her into a car. Eisert told G.E. that they needed to 

“go talk to Jesus,” (Tr. Vol. II at 36), which G.E. believed was a threat to kill 

her, and she was “scared to death.” (Id.) Before Eisert could get G.E. into a 

car, M.E. returned home. Eisert fled the house and hid near the woods until 

police used heat sensors to locate him. G.E. was so terrified that she needed 

medical attention at the scene. 

[5] On February 9, 2016, under Case Number 69C01-1603-F5-11, the State charged 

Eisert with Level 5 felony stalking, Level 6 felony residential entry,3 and Class 

A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. In May 2017, Eisert and the State entered 

 

3 Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.5 (2014). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1708-CR-1938 | May 25, 2018 Page 4 of 10

an agreement whereby Eisert would plead guilty to stalking and invasion of 

privacy, while the State would dismiss the residential-entry charge.

4 The trial 

court accepted Eisert’s plea. 

[6] The trial court held a sentencing hearing at which the State and Eisert presented 

evidence. The court then entered a very detailed sentencing order to explain its 

sentencing:

The Aggravating Factors are as follows:

1) The trauma suffered by the victim was significant and 

continues to impact her, as well as continues to impact her 

children. First, immediately after the crime the victim 

suffered an anxiety related episode that resulted in law 

enforcement calling an ambulance – she broke-down 

because only moments before she believed that she was 

going to be killed by her estranged husband. Second, Kim 

Bowman, Safe Passage Director of Shelter, testified that 

the safety plan implemented to protect the victim was the 

most extensive Safe Passage has ever implemented: the 

victim had a security system installed (which is why the 

Defendant accessed the home through the attic), the locks 

on the marital home were changed, guns were removed, 

and the son they share was escorted to and from the school 

house doors. Bowman stated that the Lethality 

Assessment indicated that the victim and her family were 

in danger. Third, during the sentencing hearing, the fear 

the victim had, and continues to have, is readily apparent 

 

4 The agreement simultaneously disposed of three other criminal actions against Eisert. In Case Number 

69D01-1512-F6-181, Eisert would plead guilty to three counts of battery, two as misdemeanors and one as a 

felony, and the State would dismiss other pending charges. The State also agreed to dismiss all charges under

Case Number 69D01-1601-CM-4 and Case Number 69D01-1608-CM-240. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1708-CR-1938 | May 25, 2018 Page 5 of 10

due to her demeanor of fear. Fourth, the statements of the 

children concerning the events herein show that they too 

fear the Defendant. The significant impact on the victim 

and her children is a substantial aggravating factor.

2) The nature and circumstances of the crime are particularly 

egregious. The events of February 5, 2016, are 

substantially aggravating: Defendant broke into the 

victim’s attic by prying open a window, then cut a hole in 

the drywall between the attic and the residential portion of 

the home using a razor blade to gain access to the living 

quarters, attempted to pull the victim into a car while 

telling her they were going to go “talk to Jesus,” and when 

law enforcement responded to the home Defendant fled 

and hid until he was discovered via the use of thermal 

imaging. Clearly stated, the events of that evening were 

terrifying and went far beyond the “course of conduct” 

necessary to prove Stalking.

3) Defendant’s criminal history and history of controlled 

substance related criminal behavior. First, Defendant’s 

felony conviction in 60D01-1512-F6-181 involved the 

same victims. Second, the Defendant’s substance abuse 

history has resulted in two (2) 30-day inpatient treatment 

stays. Third, the Court is further concerned by the 

Defendant’s employment motto of “If you can pass a drug 

test, we don’t want you.” These matters reflect poorly on 

the Defendant’s character and are an aggravating factor. 

This aggravating factor is of significant weight, however 

not as heavy as the first two aggravators. 

4) Defendant, twice, recently violated conditions of bond. 

This aggravating factor is also of significant weight. The 

Court gives this factor the appropriate weight due.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1708-CR-1938 | May 25, 2018 Page 6 of 10

The Mitigating Factors are as follows:

1) The Defendant appears remorseful and has, while 

incarcerated, regularly attended AA/NA and religious 

counseling. This mitigating factor is of some weight, 

however the Court places these actions in their proper 

light: attending programs while the Defendant had little to 

nothing else to do compares unfavorably to Defendant’s 

repeated refusal to follow the law and court orders when 

he was previously released.

The Court does not find the guilty plea and acceptance of 

responsibility to be a mitigating factor because the 

Defendant has already been rewarded for his guilty plea 

via the agreed dismissal of Cause Numbers 69D01-1601-

CM-004 and 69D01-1608-CM-0240.

The Court weighs the Aggravating and Mitigating Factor[s] and 

finds that the Aggravating Factors grossly and 

substantially outweigh the Mitigating factors.

(Appellant’s App. Conf. Vol. 2 at 83-4) (formatting in original). The court 

imposed a six-year sentence for stalking and a one-year sentence for invasion of 

privacy. The court ordered the sentences served concurrently, as required by 

the plea agreement, and then suspended one year to GPS-monitored probation. 

Discussion and Decision

[7] Eisert asserts his sentence is inappropriate. We may revise a sentence if it is 

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

offender. Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1708-CR-1938 | May 25, 2018 Page 7 of 10

Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)). We consider the aggravators and mitigators found 

by the trial court and also any other factors appearing in the record. Baumholser

v. State, 62 N.E.3d 411, 417 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. The appellant 

must demonstrate his sentence is inappropriate. Id. at 418.

[8] When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting 

point to determine the appropriateness of a sentence. Anglemyer v. State, 868 

N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g 878 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). The 

sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is “a fixed term of between one (1) and six 

(6) years, with the advisory sentence being three (3) years.” Ind. Code § 35-50-

2-6 (2014). A person convicted of a Class A misdemeanor may be imprisoned 

for “a fixed term of not more than one (1) year.” Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2 (1977). 

[9] The court imposed six years for stalking and one year for invasion of privacy

and, as required by the plea agreement, ordered the sentences served 

concurrently. Thus, the court imposed the maximum possible sentence for the 

crimes to which Eisert pled guilty. Eisert claims this is inappropriate for his 

crimes because he “did not physically harm G.E., other than the fright he 

caused which required medical treatment.” (Br. of Appellant at 11.) 

[10] Contrary to Eisert’s assertion, the lack of physical harm to G.E. does not 

minimize the horrendous nature of his crimes. Invasion of privacy5 and 

 

5 Invasion of privacy occurs when a person knowingly or intentionally violates one of various forms of 

protective or no contact orders. Ind. Code § 35-46-1-15.1 (2014). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1708-CR-1938 | May 25, 2018 Page 8 of 10

stalking6 are crimes that can be accomplished by telephone calls, emails, letters, 

or rung doorbells. See, e.g., Ind. Code § 35-45-10-3 (1993) (for purposes of 

stalking, “‘impermissible contact’ includes but is not limited to knowingly or 

intentionally following or pursuing the victim”); Pittman v. State, 45 N.E.3d 805, 

817 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (stalking statute not void for vagueness when 

defendant made repeated phone calls threatening victim’s death and showed up 

with a gun at a doctor office where victim was); McElfresh v. State, 40 N.E.3d 

1259, 1263-64 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (sending letter to third party, asking third 

party to deliver message to protected person, when third party fails to deliver 

the message, is attempted invasion of privacy), summarily aff’d by McElfresh v. 

State, 51 N.E.3d 103, 107 (Ind. 2016) (citing App. R. 58(A)(2)); Hatchett v. State, 

33 N.E.3d 1125, 1130 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (affirming invasion of privacy based 

on telephone call). Instead of contacting G.E. by one of those comparatively 

less-invasive forms, Eisert, who had repeatedly threatened to batter and kill 

G.E., climbed onto the roof of her house, broke through a window into the 

attic, and cut his way from the attic into the living quarters of the house. He 

then grabbed G.E. and attempted to place her in a car so that he could take her 

to “talk to Jesus.” (Tr. Vol. II at 36.) That Eisert’s attempt to take G.E. from 

 

6 “‘[S]talk’ means a knowing or an intentional course of conduct involving repeated or continuing 

harassment of another person that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, 

or threatened and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened.” 

Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1 (1993). “‘[H]arassment’ means conduct directed toward a victim that includes but is 

not limited to repeated or continuing impermissible contact that would cause a reasonable person to suffer 

emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress.” Ind. Code § 35-45-10-2 

(1993). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1708-CR-1938 | May 25, 2018 Page 9 of 10

the home was foiled by the arrival of other people does not persuade us to

ignore that his statement suggests he intended to hurt G.E. Nor do we need to 

overlook the increased terror that would be caused by his method of entry. 

Nothing about Eisert’s crimes suggests a six-year sentence is inappropriate. 

[11] When considering the character of the offender, one relevant fact is the 

defendant’s criminal history. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2007). The significance of a criminal history in assessing a defendant’s 

character varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in 

relation to the current offense. Id. Eisert asserts his criminal history does not 

justify an enhanced sentence because, prior to these recent domestic incidents, 

he had only “a substance-related driving offense.” (Br. of Appellant at 11.) 

While Eisert did not have a long history of convictions, the fact that he 

repeatedly violated pre-trial release and court orders when committing multiple 

invasions of privacy in a two-month period does not suggest Eisert is a person 

who respects the law or the court’s authority. 

[12] Eisert also argues the recent domestic incidents occurred because he “briefly fell 

off the rails due to his drug addiction.” (Br. of Appellant at 11.) However, 

G.E. testified Eisert had battered her and the children in prior years but she had 

not reported those incidents to authorities. This led the court to note that Eisert 

looked more like “a domestic abuser than a drug abuser.” (Tr. Vol. II at 83.) 

While Eisert’s poor behavior choices may have been exacerbated by drug use 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1708-CR-1938 | May 25, 2018 Page 10 of 10

during this two-month period, we reject his suggestion that his drug use was the 

root of his problem.7

[13] Finally, Eisert claims that, because of his attendance at Bible study, AA, and 

NA, he is “not the same man who terrified his wife and son in early 2016.” (Br. 

of Appellant at 13.) While we hope spirituality and sobriety have transformed 

Eisert into a man who would not commit the same mistakes he made in his 

past, only time will tell whether Eisert truly has changed. (See Tr. Vol. II at 85 

(court notes Eisert is a model inmate, but he violates bond when released).) 

Eisert’s consistent attendance at those meetings while incarcerated does not so 

rehabilitate his character that we can say a six-year sentence is inappropriate. 

See, e.g., Smith v. State, 839 N.E.2d 780, 788 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (eight-year 

sentence for stalking not inappropriate when defendant contacted victim dozens 

of times). 

[14] Because a six-year sentence is not inappropriate for Eisert’s character and

offenses, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

[15] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

 

7 Nor is his character bolstered by his failure to access help for his drug abuse problem prior to committing 

the heinous acts at issue herein.