Man convicted of murder as teen whose sentence was already slashed loses bid for further reduction

IL file photo

A man convicted as a teenager of murder whose sentence has already been reduced from 141 years to 88 years has failed in his most recent bid to obtain another sentence reduction.

Delaware County Prosecutor Eric Hoffman announced July 18 that Matt Stidham’s motion for sentence modification had been denied in the case of Matt Stidham v. State of Indiana, 18D02-9102-CF-13.

Stidham was 17 when he was convicted in the 1991 murder of Daniel Barker. He was initially sentenced to 141 years.

According to Hoffman’s office, “On the night of February 23, 1991, appellant and several of his friends, including the decedent in this case, drove to the decedent’s apartment where they drank whiskey and played guitars. They eventually started ‘trading punches.’ This evidently started as horseplay, but grew into an angry encounter between appellant and the decedent.

“As the fight escalated, the others joined with appellant in beating the decedent,” the prosecutor’s office wrote in a news release, quoting the 1994 Indiana Supreme Court opinion in Stidham’s case, Stidham v. State, 637 N.E.2d 140, 142. “Not only did they beat and kick the decedent, but they also struck him with a wooden club. They then loaded much of the decedent’s electronic equipment into his van, gagged him, placed him in the back of the van and drove off. They eventually arrived at a secluded area near the Mississinewa River where the decedent was removed from the van, and again beaten and stabbed some forty-seven times before his body was thrown into the river. After visiting his friends, who they told of the killing, appellant and his associates drove into the State of Illinois where they were arrested.”

Stidham’s first appeal led to a new trial on remand from the Indiana Supreme Court.

At his second trial, Stidham was again convicted of five felonies and was sentenced to 141 years. Another appeal resulted in the Indiana Supreme Court reducing his sentence to 138 years.

Stidham initiated post-conviction proceedings in 2016, and he was eventually resentenced to an aggregate term of 68 years.

The Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed in 2018, and the Indiana Supreme Court in 2020 again revised his sentence, this time to 88 years.

The majority justices pointed to two “major shifts in the law” allowing them to revisit their prior decision: a change in the Supreme Court standard under which to review and revise sentences determined to be “manifestly unreasonable,” and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling to limit when juveniles could receive the harshest punishments.

In a July 14 Petition to Modify Sentence, Stidham — represented by Anderson attorney John C. Reeder — argued he “has done exceptional (sic) well since being sentenced” and “is a good candidate for a sentence modification under the new law.”

The two-page petition does not specify which “new law” Stidham is referring to, and Reeder did not respond to a request for clarification.

In its objection to the petition, the state pointed to the 2014 amendment to the sentence modification statute, which provides that a violent criminal may not file a petition for sentence modification without the consent of the prosecutor if more than 365 days had elapsed from the date of sentencing.

“This Petition has been filed well after 365 days after the date of sentencing,” the state’s objection, filed by Hoffman, says. “Thus, in order to even file a petition for sentence modification the Defendant needed the ‘consent of the prosecuting attorney.’ The prosecuting attorney has not and will not ever give consent for this Defendant to file a petition for modification of sentence.”

Also, earlier this year, the Indiana General Assembly passed a sentence modification law related to minors.

That law, Senate Enrolled Act 464, provides, among other things, “A person sentenced in a criminal court having jurisdiction over an offense committed when the person was less than eighteen (18) years of age may file an additional petition for sentence modification under this section without the consent of the prosecuting attorney if the person has served at least … twenty (20) years of the person’s sentence, if the person is serving a sentence for murder.”

Indiana Lawyer was unable to confirm what “new law” Stidham’s petition was referencing.

In denying Stidham’s petition, Delaware Circuit Judge Kimberly Dowling did not reference a specific statute and did not provide any explanation for her ruling.

In a news release, Hoffman said, “(A)s long as I am Prosecutor in Delaware County, I will not agree to a reduction of a violent criminal’s sentence. Violent offenders must serve every minute of their sentence. The mere passage of time does not ease the pain and suffering inflicted at the hands of violent criminals. Nor does it lessen the risk that the person will commit another heinous crime.”

Reeder, Stidham’s attorney, did not respond to a request for comment on the denial and/or on any plans to appeal.