Corey R. Faith v. State of Indiana, 131 N.E.3d 158

In 2005, Corey Faith, a teacher, groomed and repeatedly sexually abused his 12-year-old student A.B. over several months, including intercourse, digital penetration, oral sex, and phone sex.
A.B. recalled more than 20 specific incidents occurring in locations including a classroom, locker room, and at Faith's home; Faith led her to believe they would elope.
Faith was charged with 36 counts of Class A felony child molesting and pleaded guilty to three counts.
The trial court sentenced Faith to three consecutive 30-year terms with 20 years suspended (effective executed sentence of 70 years?). [Note: the Court’s opinion states consecutive 30-year terms with 20 years suspended.]
The Court of Appeals, relying on Monroe and Harris, used Appellate Rule 7(B) to revise the sentence to concurrent 30-year terms (no suspension).
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacated the Court of Appeals decision, and revised the sentence to consecutive 30-year terms with 30 years suspended (executed sentence of 60 years), finding a concurrent 30-year aggregate inadequate under the circumstances; Justice Slaughter dissented, preferring to affirm the trial court.

Issue	State's Argument	Faith's Argument	Held
Whether Appellate Rule 7(B) supports reducing consecutive sentences to concurrent terms here	The State argued the Court of Appeals erred; the original consecutive sentencing was appropriate given the severity and repeated abuse	Faith argued appellate revision was appropriate and relied on Monroe and Harris to justify concurrent sentences	Court held the Court of Appeals erred; reinstated consecutive sentences but modified suspension to produce an executed 60-year term
Whether Monroe/Harris require concurrency for multiple molestations of a single victim	State argued Monroe/Harris are distinguishable because those involved enhanced sentences, not advisory sentences	Faith relied on Monroe and Harris to contend consecutive sentences are inappropriate for multiple acts against one victim	Court held Monroe/Harris involved enhanced sentences and are not controlling; they do not mandate concurrency here

Monroe v. State, 886 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2008) (revised enhanced multiple Class A child-molesting sentences to be served concurrently)
Harris v. State, 897 N.E.2d 927 (Ind. 2008) (similar revision of enhanced child-molesting sentences to concurrency)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (describing appellate Rule 7(B) role to "leaven the outliers")
Taylor v. State, 86 N.E.3d 157 (Ind. 2017) (explaining Rule 7(B) is reserved for exceptional cases)
McCain v. State, 88 N.E.3d 1066 (Ind. 2018) (confirming Indiana Supreme Court authority under Appellate Rule 7(B) to review and revise sentences)