MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 05 2017, 9:21 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Brian A. Karle Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Ball Eggleston, PC Attorney General of Indiana
Lafayette, Indiana
Larry D. Allen
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Edward B. Armstrong, October 5, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
86A03-1703-CR-720
v. Appeal from the Warren Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Hunter J. Reece,
Appellee-Plaintiff 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 86A03-1703-CR-720 | October 5, 2017 Page 4 of 4