*** MEDIA ADVISORY***May 5, 2009 PROSECUTOR WANTS SUPREME COURT TO WEIGH IN ON TROWBRIDGE Media Contact:  Curtis T. Hill, Jr. - 296-1888 The Indiana Court of Appeals reduced the sentence of convicted sex offender Mel Trowbridge on March 19, 2009.  On September 6, 2007, Trowbridge pled guilty to four counts of sexual misconduct with a minor in the Elkhart Superior Court No. 3.  Judge George Biddlecome sentenced Trowbridge to 45 years, with 10 of those years suspended.  On March 19, 2008, the Indiana Court of Appeals determined that Trowbridge’s sentence was “inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and character of the offender,” and ordered Judge Biddlecome to reduce the sentence to 25 years.  Elkhart County Prosecuting Attorney Curtis T. Hill, Jr. supports Judge Biddlecome’s original sentence as appropriate for the former teacher, who engaged in four separate acts of sexual misconduct involving two different minors.  Accordingly, Hill has asked the Attorney General to appeal the Court of Appeals’ decision to the Indiana Supreme Court.  The Attorney General’s office has done so. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals stated that Trowbridge’s offenses were “slightly more egregious than a typical sexual misconduct with a minor offense.”  Trowbridge asked one victim to “play dumb or act confused” so that authorities would think she was lying.  After his arrest, Trowbridge continued indirectly communicating with the other victim, leading her to believe she and Trowbridge had a possible future together.  The Court also noted Trowbridge’s inappropriate contact with teenage girls at a different school several years before, and Trowbridge’s previous pursuit of one of the victim’s teenage siblings.  “I do not know that there is such a thing as ‘typical sexual misconduct with a minor,’ but I do know that Trowbridge’s sexual misconduct with two minors was outrageous by Elkhart County standards,” said Elkhart County Prosecuting Attorney Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Despite recognizing the aggravating factors relied upon by Judge Biddlecome and agreeing with his rationale for sentencing on each count as appropriate, the Court of Appeals nevertheless reduced Trowbridge’s total sentence to 25 years by ordering that three of his convictions be run concurrently, rather than consecutively.  In doing so, the Court of Appeals ignored the plea agreement term requiring that all counts run consecutively.  In the brief filed by the Attorney General, the State asserts that “constitutional authority to revise a sentence does not authorize a Court to violate specific, non-discretionary terms of a plea agreement.”    Hill and the Attorney General’s Office are asking the Indiana Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate Judge Biddlecome’s original sentence, in keeping with the terms of the negotiated plea agreement.”                                                 *  *  *