Scott Allen Eacret, Jr., Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Thirty-year-old Scott Eacret, Jr. molested a twelve-year-old child (Child) on three occasions while living with Child's family. This included twice placing duct tape over Child's mouth and forcibly having sexual intercourse with her. Eacret threatened to kill Child and her family if she disclosed the abuse to anyone. And after Child reported the abuse to her school counselor, Eacret ominously texted Child a photograph of a wooden knife with her name engraved on the blade.

[2] For all this and more, Eacret was convicted of two counts of Level 1 felony child molesting, one count of Level 4 felony child molesting, one count of Level 5 felony child solicitation, one count of Level 5 felony possession of child pornography, and two counts of Level 6 felony intimidation. The trial court sentenced Eacret to a total of ninety years in prison, which he argues is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character. We affirm.

Facts

[3] In 2022, Child was twelve years old and living with her maternal grandparents (Grandparents), who had adopted her at a young age. Child's twenty-four-year- old maternal aunt (Aunt) also lived with Grandparents, and that fall, Aunt's thirty-year-old boyfriend, Eacret, came to live with Grandparents as well. Aunt and Eacret shared a bedroom next to Child's bedroom, the latter of which was located at the end of a hallway on the second floor of Grandparents’ home.

[4] One night, in mid-October 2022, Child encountered Eacret in the hallway while walking from her bedroom to the second-floor bathroom. As they walked past each other, Eacret said to Child, “[Y]ou should give me some head.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 72. Child said “no” and laughed it off, but she later realized that Eacret was being serious. Id.

[5] Over the next several weeks, Eacret molested Child on three occasions. The first molestation occurred one night in late October, after Eacret broke into Child's locked bedroom while she was sleeping. Child awoke to Eacret pulling down her pants, which Eacret soon removed despite Child's resistance. Eacret then placed duct tape over Child's mouth, flipped her onto her stomach, pinned her down, and had sexual intercourse with her. Afterward, Eacret said to Child: “[B]efore you take this [tape] off or think about saying anything, don't forget how crazy my family is. And I won't think twice about killing you all.” Id. at 78. Eacret then left the bedroom.

[6] The second molestation occurred one night in early November, after Eacret again broke into Child's locked bedroom while she was sleeping. This time, when Child awoke, Eacret had already removed her pants and was about to insert his penis into her vagina. But Eacret stopped and rubbed Child's upper thighs with his hands instead. He then left the bedroom.

[7] The third molestation occurred one night in mid-November. This time, Eacret entered Child's bedroom while she was awake in bed. Though Child resisted Eacret, he placed duct tape over her mouth and removed her pants. He then forced her onto her back and had sexual intercourse with her. During the assault, however, Child wrapped her legs around Eacret's body and rolled herself off the bed, causing her and Eacret to fall loudly to the floor. Downstairs, Child's grandfather heard the noise and started to stir. Eacret therefore fled the bedroom.

[8] Eacret eventually moved out of Grandparents’ home. For nearly a year afterward, Child did not disclose being molested out of fear that Eacret would carry out his threat to kill her and her family. But in October 2023, Eacret sent Child several sexually suggestive text messages along with a photograph of himself wearing only underwear. This prompted Child to disclose the molestations to her school counselor, who in turn, reported the disclosures to the Indiana Department of Child Services. A day or two later, Eacret texted Child a photograph of a wooden knife with her name engraved on the blade. This frightened Child.

[9] Police arrested Eacret, seized his cellphone, and obtained a warrant to subject it to a forensic examination. The examination uncovered two images of child pornography, one depicting a naked infant or toddler and another depicting the genitalia of a child estimated to be seven to eleven years old. The State thereafter charged Eacret with seven crimes: two counts of Level 1 felony child molesting, one count of Level 4 felony child molesting, one count of Level 5 felony child solicitation, one count of Level 5 felony possession of child pornography, and two counts of Level 6 felony intimidation.

[10] A jury found Eacret guilty as charged, and the trial court entered judgments of conviction accordingly. Then, at sentencing, the court found three aggravating circumstances: Eacret's criminal history of two felony and four misdemeanor convictions; the fact that he was under supervision in another case at the time he committed two of the instant offenses; and his abuse of trust in assaulting Child while Grandparents allowed him to live in their home. Eacret asked the court to consider three mitigators: the undue hardship incarceration would have on his six-year-old dependent daughter; his self-reported substance-abuse issues; and his purportedly low risk of reoffending.¹ The trial court found there were no mitigating circumstances.

[11] The trial court ultimately sentenced Eacret as follows:

Count I Level 5 felony child solicitation 4 years

Count II Level 1 felony child molesting 36 years

Count III Level 6 felony intimidation 2 years

Count IV Level 4 felony child molesting 8 years

Count V Level 1 felony child molesting 36 years

Count VI Level 6 felony intimidation 2 years

Count VII Level 5 felony possession of 4 years child pornography

The court ordered Eacret to serve his sentence on Count III concurrently with his sentence on Count II, as both offenses occurred during the same assault of Child. But the court ordered Eacret to serve his sentences on Counts I, II, IV, V, VI, and VII consecutively, for a total sentence of ninety years in prison.

Discussion and Decision

[12] Eacret appeals his ninety-year sentence, raising two distinct issues. First, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion by finding no mitigating circumstances. Second, he argues that his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). We conclude Eacret's sentence is not inappropriate and, therefore, need not determine whether the trial court abused its sentencing discretion. See Chappell v. State, 966 N.E.2d 124, 134 n.10 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (observing that sentencing errors are harmless when the sentence is not inappropriate); see also Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504, 507 (Ind. 2007).

I. Standard of Review

[13] Appellate Rule 7(B) 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.” In reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence, our principal role is to attempt to leaven the outliers, not to achieve a perceived “correct” sentence. Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014). Accordingly, we give “substantial deference” to the trial court's sentencing decision. Id. The court's judgment should prevail unless it is “overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense ․ and the defendant's character.” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 112 (Ind. 2015).

II. Above-Advisory Sentences Were Not Inappropriate

[14] In assessing the appropriateness of a sentence, we first look to the statutory range established for that class of offense. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218. Eacret was convicted of:

• Two Level 1 felonies, each of which has a sentencing range of twenty to forty years and an advisory sentence of thirty years, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4(b);

• One Level 4 felony, which has a sentencing range of two to twelve years and an advisory sentence of six years, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5;

• Two Level 5 felonies, each of which has a sentencing range of one to six years and an advisory sentence of three years, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b); and

• Two Level 6 felonies, each of which has a sentencing range of six months to two and one-half years and an advisory sentence of one year, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b).

For each of these convictions, the trial court sentenced Eacret above the advisory term but below the maximum term for the respective class of offense. See supra ¶ 11. Neither the nature of the offenses nor Eacret's character renders these above-advisory sentences inappropriate.

[15] “[C]rimes against children are particularly contemptible.” Pierce v. State, 949 N.E.2d 349, 352 (Ind. 2011). Here, Eacret solicited oral sex from the twelve-year-old granddaughter of a couple that graciously allowed him to stay in their home. He then molested the child on three occasions, twice by breaking into the child's locked bedroom and removing her pants while she slept. Two of the molestations involved Eacret forcibly having sexual intercourse with the child after placing duct tape over her mouth to keep her quiet. Eacret also threatened to kill the child and her family if she disclosed the abuse. Out of fear, the child kept quiet until nearly a year later, when Eacret sent her sexually suggestive text messages and a photograph of himself wearing only underwear. Eacret then doubled down on his threat by texting the child a photograph of a wooden knife with her name engraved on the blade. And he was ultimately found to be in possession of child pornography.

[16] As for Eacret's character, his criminal history is not insignificant. See Prince v. State, 148 N.E.3d 1171, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (“Even a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendant's character.”). Eacret has two prior felony and four prior misdemeanor convictions. These include Level 5 felony convictions for altering a firearm's identifying marks and possession of methamphetamine as well as Class A misdemeanor convictions for battery resulting in bodily injury and carrying a handgun without a license. Eacret was also under court supervision in the carrying-a-handgun case when he both intimidated Child with the photograph of the wooden knife and possessed child pornography. And though the uncontested evidence “showed [Eacret] to be an engaged and supportive father,” Appellant's Br., p. 16, that evidence speaks only to Eacret's character toward his own child. It does not address, much less outweigh, the evidence establishing his character toward someone else's child.

III. Consecutive Sentences Were Not Inappropriate

[17] Notwithstanding the trial court's discretion to order concurrent sentences, see Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(c), Eacret faced a combined sentencing range of forty-five to 109 years and a combined advisory sentence of seventy-four years. By ordering Eacret to serve all but one of his sentences consecutively, the court issued a total executed sentence of ninety years, which is sixteen years above the combined advisory term and nineteen years below the combined maximum term. Eacret contends this sentence is an outlier among sentences based on similar facts, pointing to three decisions of our Supreme Court: Monroe v. State, 886 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2008); Harris v. State, 897 N.E.2d 927 (Ind. 2008); and Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158 (Ind. 2019). We are not persuaded.

A. Monroe v. State

[18] Monroe involved a defendant convicted of five counts of Class A felony child molesting. 886 N.E.2d at 579.² On each count, the trial court sentenced the defendant to a near-minimum term of twenty-two years with two years suspended to probation. Id. The court then ordered the terms to be served consecutively, for a total executed sentence of 100 years. Id. On appeal, a panel of this Court affirmed the sentence, but our Supreme Court later accepted transfer and exercised its Appellate Rule 7(B) authority to revise it. Id. at 581. Specifically, the Supreme Court revised the defendant's individual sentences to maximum fifty-year terms but ordered them served concurrently, for a total executed sentence of fifty years. Id.

[19] The Monroe Court observed that the defendant molested his child victim repeatedly for over two years and, in doing so, violated a position of trust as the child's surrogate parent. Id. But the Court noted that the five charged acts of molestation were identical and involved the same victim. Id. Additionally, the Court gave little weight to the defendant's criminal history of six driving-related misdemeanors. Id. Ultimately, the Court reasoned that the nature of the offenses and the defendant's character warranted enhanced but not consecutive sentences. Id.

B. Harris v. State

[20] Harris involved a defendant convicted of two counts of Class A felony child molesting. 897 N.E.2d at 928. On each count, the trial court sentenced the defendant to a maximum term of fifty years. Id. The court then ordered the terms served consecutively, for a total executed sentence of 100 years. Id. On appeal, a panel of this Court affirmed the sentence, but our Supreme Court later accepted transfer and exercised its Appellate Rule 7(B) authority to revise it. Specifically, the Supreme Court ordered the defendant to serve the sentences concurrently, for a total executed sentence of fifty years. Id. at 930.

[21] The Harris Court observed that the defendant molested his child victim semi-weekly for roughly three years and, in doing so, violated a position of trust as the child's father figure. Id. The Court, however, noted that the two charged acts of molestation were identical and involved the same victim. Id. The Court also found the defendant's criminal history, which included two Class D felonies involving theft and some driving-related misdemeanors, was not a significant aggravator because the offenses were different in nature and gravity from child molesting. Id. Though the Court did not cite Monroe, it similarly reasoned that the nature of the offenses and the defendant's character warranted enhanced but not consecutive sentences. Id.

C. Faith v. State

[22] Faith involved a defendant who was charged with thirty-six counts of Class A felony child molesting and pleaded guilty to three. 131 N.E.3d at 160. On each of the three counts, the trial court sentenced the defendant to an advisory term of thirty years, to be served consecutively, with a total of twenty years suspended, for a total executed sentence of seventy years. Id. at 159. On appeal, a panel of this Court exercised its Rule 7(B) discretion and, relying on Monroe and Harris, revised the defendant's sentences to concurrent thirty-year terms with no time suspended. Id. Our Supreme Court then accepted transfer and exercised its own 7(B) discretion, finding a total executed sentence of thirty years to be “wholly inadequate under the circumstances.” Id. at 160.

[23] Though not mentioned in our Supreme Court's decision, this Court observed that the defendant violated a position of trust by repeatedly molesting his child victim. Faith v. State, No. 18A-CR-2901, 2019 WL 2275096, at *4-5 (Ind. Ct. App. May 29, 2019) (mem.), trans. granted, opinion vacated. Specifically, the defendant was the child's teacher-turned-caregiver while the child's mother was in a mental health facility and the child's father was working long hours to pay for the mother's treatment. Id. This Court also noted that the three charged acts of molestation were identical and involved the same victim. Id. Additionally, the Court recognized that the defendant lacked a criminal history. Id.

[24] The Supreme Court, however, added that the defendant groomed the child and engaged in sexual intercourse with the child more than twenty times, including while he sat on a toilet and in various locations inside the child's school. Faith, 131 N.E.3d at 160. The defendant also committed other sex acts with the child and led the child to believe they would elope together. Id. The Court ultimately returned the defendant's three sentences to consecutive, advisory terms of thirty years each but ordered a total of thirty years suspended, for a total executed sentence of sixty years. Id. In doing so, the Court noted that Monroe and Harris “involved the revision of enhanced, not advisory, sentences to be served concurrently instead of consecutively.” Id. (emphasis in original).³

[25] Eacret likens his case to Monroe and Harris, noting that he abused a position of trust in molesting Child and that his criminal history consists of offenses that are different in nature and gravity from child molesting. Because the child molesting sentences in those two cases were revised from consecutive to concurrent, Eacret essentially asks us to do the same with his two thirty-six-year sentences for Level 1 felony child molesting.⁴ Eacret also considers Faith instructive because the consecutive, advisory child molesting sentences in that case were ultimately affirmed, but a total of thirty years were suspended, yielding a total executed sentence that is thirty years less than Eacret's.

[26] Eacret, however, ignores the violent nature of his child molesting offenses. He twice broke into Child's locked bedroom while she was sleeping, twice placed duct tape over her mouth, and twice forced sexual intercourse upon her. Eacret also threatened to kill Child and her family if she disclosed the abuse to anyone. And his criminal history includes three prior convictions for offenses that are either violent or often associated with violence: altering a firearm's identifying marks, battery resulting in bodily injury, and carrying a handgun without a license. Additionally, Eacret was under court supervision in the carrying-a-handgun case when, in this case, he committed both his second intimidation offense and his possession of child pornography offense.

[27] Such facts were not present in Monroe, Harris, or Faith. Those cases also did not involve convictions for offenses in addition to child molesting. Eacret was convicted of four additional felonies: child solicitation, possession of child pornography, and two counts of intimidation. And though not criminally charged for it, he sent his child victim sexually suggestive text messages along with a photograph of himself wearing only underwear.

[28] We are not persuaded that Eacret's total executed sentence of ninety years is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses or his character. We therefore affirm.

[29] I respectfully dissent from the majority's conclusion that Eacret's total executed sentence of ninety years is not inappropriate. I agree with Eacret that his sentence is an outlier among sentences based on similar facts presented to the Indiana Supreme Court in Monroe, Harris, and Faith. As with those cases, the current case involves multiple charges and convictions involving a single victim. Eacret received enhanced, not advisory, sentences to be served consecutively (except for his two-year sentence on Count III which was ordered served concurrently with Count II), resulting in a quite lengthy aggregate executed sentence. The Indiana Supreme Court has clearly deemed such sentences inappropriate in cases involving multiple acts of molestation against a single victim, and the majority's attempt to distinguish this case is unpersuasive. I believe we should exercise our authority under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B), and in doing so, I would revise each of Eacret's sentences to their advisory terms (thirty, thirty, six, three, three, one, one) leaving intact the order that they be served consecutively (save one year on Count III remaining concurrent).

[30] For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority's inappropriateness analysis and would reduce Eacret's sentence to a seventy-three-year executed sentence.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Eacret argued that he posed a “low risk” of reoffending, Tr. Vol. III, p. 126, but his presentence investigation report placed him in the “MODERATE risk category to reoffend.” App. Vol. II, p. 153.

2.   Monroe, Harris, and Faith each involved convictions for Class A felony child molesting. But in 2005, our General Assembly amended Indiana's sentencing statutes to provide for “advisory” sentences rather than “presumptive” sentences. See Pub. L. No. 71-2005 § 5. The defendants in Monroe and Harris were sentenced under the old presumptive scheme, and the defendant in Faith was sentenced under the new advisory scheme. Under the old scheme, a Class A felony had a presumptive sentence of thirty years “with not more than twenty ․ years added for aggravating circumstances or not more than ten ․ years subtracted for mitigating circumstances.” Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4 (2004). Under the new scheme, a Class A felony has a sentencing range of twenty to fifty years and an advisory sentence of thirty years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4 (2005); accord Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4(a) (2026).

3.   We note that only Harris involved the revision of enhanced sentences. Supra ¶ 20. Monroe involved the revision of near-minimum sentences. Supra ¶ 18.

4.   Ordering Eacret to serve his two thirty-six-year sentences concurrently while keeping his other sentences the same would yield a total executed sentence of fifty-four years. Eacret specifically requests that we “revise his sentence to an aggregate executed term not exceeding fifty-five (55) years.” Appellant's Br., p. 17.

Weissmann, Judge.

Bailey, J., concurs. Brown, J., dissents with a separate opinion.