REIBER v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After Jarrod Reiber pled guilty to Level 2 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in a narcotic drug, the trial court imposed the advisory sentence of seventeen and a half years. Reiber now asks us to revise his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), arguing it is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Dominique Beachem passed away in the early morning hours of December 30, 2022, and the police investigated his death as an overdose. Detectives located Beachem's cell phone and 3.2 grams of marijuana at the scene. Beachem's girlfriend told them Beachem had been using marijuana and Percocet and had purchased pills from Reiber the day before he died. Beachem's friend also told the detectives Beachem had recently purchased pills from Reiber.

[3] Upon accessing Beachem's phone, the detectives learned he and Reiber had exchanged several messages on December 29, 2022, between 6:16 and 6:52 p.m. In the conversation, Beachem said, “Ok I be by that way grabbing some controllers may want bud too I wana check it out if that's cool prob least 1 or 2 g[.]” Appellant's Appendix Volume 2 at 53 [sic throughout]. Reiber told Beachem he could come over “to [his] crib[,]” and Beachem said he was “[p]ulling up” at 6:52 p.m. Id. The location data from Beachem's phone confirmed his movements, and the detectives believed Reiber sold Beachem marijuana and another substance that evening.

[4] On January 3, the detectives obtained and executed a warrant to search Reiber's house. Reiber was in the house, and officers found three blue pills labeled “M30” and a tray with a powdery substance on it in his bedroom. Id. at 54. Reiber initially claimed someone else had put the pills in his room when the police arrived, but he later admitted the pills were his. He said he and another individual had purchased fifteen pills earlier that day for $320.

[5] Reiber consented to have his cell phone searched. His messages corroborated that he had purchased fifteen Percocet pills on January 3 from someone named Joey. The two negotiated the transaction, and then Reiber said he “[o]nly [had] 4 percs left” and that the pills were “like candy ․” Id. at 31. When he spoke with police on the 3rd, Reiber admitted he had facilitated the deal with Beachem and was present when Beachem purchased a blue pill and marijuana on December 29. However, he claimed someone else had physically handed the substances to Beachem.

[6] At some point before his death, Beachem sent someone a picture of a blue pill and said it “[h]ad [him] really fucked up” and that “[t]hey be pressing these bitches bro I swear[.]” Id. at 55. One detective observed “that it is common for individuals to press fentanyl into pill form and make them look like common pills.” Id. Sometime after Beachem's death, Reiber sent a voice message stating that he and Beachem had been in his kitchen “snortin perks and choppin it up and shit. Cuz seemed fine.” Id. Reiber said Beachem looked hungry, so he gave him some food, “[a]nd then cuz went home and shot himself, bro. That's some wild shit[.]” Id.

[7] On January 6, 2023, and as later amended, the State charged Reiber with Count 1: Conspiracy to Commit Dealing in a Narcotic Drug, a Level 2 felony; Count 2: Conspiracy to Commit Possession of a Narcotic Drug, a Level 3 felony; Count 3: Dealing in a Narcotic Drug, a Level 4 felony; Count 4: Possession of a Narcotic Drug, a Level 5 felony; and Count 5: Dealing in a Controlled Substance Resulting in Death, a Level 1 felony. It also alleged he was a habitual offender. Reiber ultimately pled guilty to Level 2 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in a narcotic drug in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges and the habitual offender enhancement. Specifically, he admitted he conspired to deal approximately twenty-eight grams of fentanyl between December 29, 2022 and January 3, 2023. The plea agreement provided that Reiber would be sentenced to no more than thirty years.

[8] Reiber's presentence investigation report (PSI) revealed that as a juvenile, he'd been adjudicated delinquent twice for committing acts constituting Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury. Reiber pled guilty to his first adult offense—Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine—in June 2018 when he was twenty years old. He violated the terms of his one-and-a-half-year suspended sentence four times, and it was eventually revoked. That same year, Reiber was again charged with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, and in 2019 he pled guilty to that offense with judgment entered as a Class A misdemeanor. He received probation, but it was terminated unsuccessfully a few years later. In 2021, he pled guilty to Level 6 felony domestic battery resulting in moderate bodily injury and received a partially suspended sentence, but his probation was terminated unsuccessfully in June 2023.

[9] The PSI also detailed Reiber's history of alcohol and drug abuse. Reiber reported that he began regularly using alcohol and marijuana in his early teens. He began using Klonopin and Xanax in high school and Percocet and methamphetamine by the time he was eighteen. However, he claimed he stopped using methamphetamine in 2019. Despite being ordered to complete substance abuse treatment, he failed to do so and admitted that he dealt drugs to support his substance abuse problem.

[10] A sentencing hearing was held on December 4 and 10, 2025, nearly three years after Reiber's arrest. Reiber had been incarcerated in the interim, and during that time he was diagnosed with PTSD with dissociation, schizoaffective disorder, and substance use disorder. He received peer coaching and completed Moral Reconation Therapy and Criminal Addictive Thinking programs. At the time of sentencing, he was participating in a program called Seeking Safety to help him manage symptoms associated with his trauma and substance abuse.

[11] At the hearing, Reiber claimed he had been molested by his mother's boyfriend when he was around ten years old.¹ He testified that at some point after the abuse occurred, he began acting out. He was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and then started using marijuana and alcohol “by the end of middle school” when he was around “twelve or thirteen” years old. Transcript at 41. Both Reiber and his peer recovery coach testified that Reiber's mindset shifted while he was incarcerated, and he became motivated and committed to bettering his life. As evidence of his commitment to change, Reiber testified that he had declined opportunities to relapse while in jail and had earned the status of jail trustee, which signaled he was reliable and followed the rules.

[12] The trial court identified two mitigating factors and two aggravating factors. In mitigation, the trial court found that Reiber had “expressed remorse and made efforts to correct his behavior.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 155. It noted Reiber's criminal history in aggravation and found that the harm Beachem suffered was significant and greater than the elements necessary to prove conspiracy to commit dealing in a narcotic drug. Ultimately, the court sentenced Reiber to seventeen and a half years with ten years executed in the Department of Correction, three years executed as a direct placement on home detention, and four and a half years suspended to probation. Reiber now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[13] Reiber asks us to revise his sentence under “Appellate Rule 7(B), which permits an appellate court to revise a sentence if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the sentence is found to be inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 159 (Ind. 2019). The goal of Rule 7(B) review is “to leaven the outliers” rather than “achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). We are guided by “our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224. “[A] trial court's sentencing decision will generally prevail ‘unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard[,] and lack of brutality) and the defendant's character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).’ ” Konkle v. State, 253 N.E.3d 1068, 1093 (Ind. 2025) (quoting Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015)). The defendant has the burden to prove his sentence is inappropriate. Id. at 1092.

[14] Here, Reiber was convicted of Level 2 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in a narcotic drug and received the advisory sentence for a Level 2 felony—seventeen and a half years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5 (2014). “Since the advisory sentence is the starting point our General Assembly has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed, the defendant bears a particularly heavy burden in persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate when the trial court imposes the advisory sentence.” Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.

[15] On appeal, Reiber argues “the nature of [his] offense, while serious, did not distinguish [his] culpability from that of his co-conspirators or otherwise warrant a lengthy sentence.” Appellant's Brief at 10. While he acknowledges he pled guilty to conspiring to deal about twenty-eight grams of fentanyl, he asserts he “did not act alone” and “there was no evidence that the drugs [he] conspired to sell were the sole cause of [Beachem's] death.” Id. However, as the State notes, Reiber “ignores that a conspiracy, by definition, includes multiple participants.” Appellee's Br. at 14 (citing Ind. Code § 35-41-5-2(a) (2014) (providing “[a] person conspires to commit a felony when, with intent to commit the felony, the person agrees with another person to commit the felony”) (emphasis added)). Moreover, Reiber conspired to deal a substantially greater amount of fentanyl than the ten grams required to make the offense a Level 2 felony under Indiana Code section 35-48-4-1(e)(1) (2017) (amended July 1, 2023), and he worked closely with Beachem to facilitate the transaction that seemingly caused his death. Reiber has failed to show the nature of his offense warrants a lesser sentence.

[16] Reiber also argues that his “character strongly support[s] a less restrictive sentence.” Appellant's Br. at 10. Although a defendant need not show both the nature of his offense and his character warrant relief, when “the evidence on one prong militates against relief, a claim based on the other prong must be all the stronger to justify relief.” Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 127 (Ind. 2024). “A defendant's life and conduct are illustrative of his ․ character.” Morris v. State, 114 N.E.3d 531, 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. Reiber argues he presented compelling evidence that he “suffered significant untreated childhood trauma that led to addiction, but [has recently] demonstrated a sincere commitment to change.” Appellant's Br. at 11. While Reiber's recent strides toward reform are commendable, he failed to take advantage of prior court-ordered substance abuse treatment and escalated his involvement with drugs from simply using to dealing. See Marley v. State, 17 N.E.3d 335, 341 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (finding the defendant's addiction did not warrant revision “especially ․ since [he] never sought treatment until after his arrest for the instant offense”), trans. denied. Additionally, Reiber's efforts to rehabilitate himself did not go unaccounted for; the trial court recognized his “efforts to correct his behavior” in mitigation and fashioned his sentence accordingly. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 155.

[17] Critically, a defendant's criminal history is always relevant to the character analysis. Cramer v. State, 240 N.E.3d 693, 700 (Ind. 2024). Its significance to the appropriateness of a given sentence “varies based on the gravity, nature, proximity, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current offense.” Pritcher v. State, 208 N.E.3d 656, 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). Reiber committed the present offense when he was twenty-five years old. As a juvenile, he was twice adjudicated delinquent for committing misdemeanor battery. In his first few years of adulthood, he picked up two convictions for possession of methamphetamine and one for felony domestic battery. Reiber also demonstrated a pattern of violating the terms of his probation, and the fact that he committed this offense while on probation in his domestic battery case reflects poorly on his character. See Rich v. State, 890 N.E.2d 44, 54 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (finding the fact that a defendant committed the offense while on probation is a substantial consideration in assessing his character), trans. denied.

[18] Finally, we note that Reiber agreed to give the trial court discretion to sentence him within the statutory range. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 147 (“The parties have no agreement regarding sentencing except that said sentence shall not exceed thirty (30) years[.]”); I.C. § 35-50-2-4.5 (“A person who commits a Level 2 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between ten (10) and thirty (30) years.”). Not only did the trial court impose a far shorter term than it could have, it allowed him to serve more than a third of his sentence on home detention and probation. See Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010) (in reviewing a sentence for inappropriateness, appellate courts may consider “whether a portion of the sentence is ordered suspended or otherwise crafted using any of the variety of sentencing tools available to the trial judge”). In consideration of the above, we conclude Reiber has failed to show his seventeen-and-a-half-year sentence is inappropriate in light of his character.

Conclusion

[19] For these reasons, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

[20] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Reiber did not disclose this abuse in his PSI interview. At the sentencing hearing, he testified that he“didn't want to talk to” the probation officer who interviewed him. Transcript at 39.

DeBoer, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.