Andrew W. Barrus v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 35A02-1605-CR-1170

Defendant Andrew W. Barrus was on probation for prior burglaries (FB-73) when he joined his cousin Jonathan Tipton in a premeditated nighttime break-in and violent beating of Colton Miller, using a metal bar and causing serious injuries.
Barrus helped recruit a driver (Andrea Reynolds), carried the weapon into Miller’s apartment through a window, and later participated in assaultive conduct, cleanup of evidence, and arranging an alibi.
Barrus was charged in a new case (F4-278) and tried: convicted of Level 1 burglary and Level 5 battery; pleaded to habitual offender enhancement; the trial court reduced battery to a class B misdemeanor at sentencing.
Sentences imposed in F4-278: 39 years for burglary, 6 months for battery (reduced to 180 days), and an 18-year term labeled for habitual-offender status; sentences were consecutive. Trial court also revoked Barrus’s probation in FB-73 and ordered the remaining 3 years executed consecutively.
On appeal Barrus challenged the appropriateness of his sentence (nature of offense and character), and the State conceded the trial court erred in how it attached and entered the habitual-offender enhancement.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence as not inappropriate, but remanded to correct the abstract of judgment to attach the habitual-offender enhancement to the Level 1 burglary conviction as required by statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court properly entered habitual-offender enhancement	State: enhancement valid but must be attached to highest sentence	Barrus: challenged sentence generally; State conceded procedural error on attachment	Court: trial court erred in labeling habitual term separately; remand to attach enhancement to burglary conviction
Whether aggregate sentence for F4-278 is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B)	State: sentence within statutory ranges and supported by facts	Barrus: sentence excessive because he was not initial aggressor and Tipton received a lesser sentence	Court: after review, sentence not inappropriate given violent, premeditated attack, defendant’s conduct and criminal history
Whether probation-revocation sentence should be considered in Appellate Rule 7(B) review	State: probation revocation reviewed for abuse of discretion and not part of 7(B) analysis for F4-278	Barrus: sought to include three-year probation-revocation term in appropriateness analysis	Court: declined to include probation revocation term; affirmed revocation sanction as within statutory authority

Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (sentencing procedure and appellate review framework)
Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (standard for reviewing probation-revocation sanctions)
Hope v. State, 834 N.E.2d 713 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (appellate authority to revise sentences)
Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (deference to trial court’s sentencing perspective)
Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (burden on appellant to show inappropriateness on both nature and character)
Foutch v. State, 53 N.E.3d 577 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (focus of 7(B) on whether imposed sentence is inappropriate, not whether another sentence would be better)
Parks v. State, 22 N.E.3d 552 (Ind. 2014) (factors for assessing sentence appropriateness)
Grundy v. State, 38 N.E.3d 675 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (violent attack on helpless victim did not support downward revision)
Clark v. State, 26 N.E.3d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (premeditated attack causing serious injury did not warrant reduction)