Jessica McCain v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

FILED
MEMORANDUM DECISION
09/15/2017, 10:21 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Brian A. Karle Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Lafayette, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Matthew B. Mackenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jessica McCain, September 15, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
79A02-1703-CR-616
v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe
Superior Court.
The Honorable Randy J. Williams,
State of Indiana, Judge.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Case Number
79D01-1606-F1-8
Friedlander, Senior Judge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1703-CR-606 | September 15, 2017 Page 1 of 9
1
[1] After pleading guilty to one count of Level 1 felony child molesting, Jessica
McCain appeals from the trial court’s sentencing order, contending that her
forty-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender. We reverse and remand with instructions.
[2] On May 28, 2016, twenty-three-year-old McCain was at an apartment in
Lafayette, Indiana, with the one-year-old victim. McCain was giving the victim
a bath. McCain admitted that she intentionally placed her mouth on the
victim’s penis while videotaping the incident on a borrowed cellphone. She had
planned to send the video to her boyfriend. McCain also stated that she was
aware that the victim was less than twelve years old.
[3] The State charged McCain with multiple offenses for this incident. McCain
agreed to plead guilty to the most serious charge, Level 1 felony child
molesting. Under the terms of the plea agreement, McCain’s sentence was left
open to argument and the discretion of the trial court.
[4] After hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the pre-sentence
investigation report, the trial court imposed a forty-year sentence with thirty-
eight years executed and two years suspended to probation. McCain now
appeals.
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a)(1) (2015).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1703-CR-606 | September 15, 2017 Page 2 of 9
[5] McCain contends that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and the character of the offender, seeking review under Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B).
[6] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we may revise a sentence authorized
by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we determine
that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender. Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
When a defendant requests appellate review and revision of his sentence, we
have the power to affirm or reduce the sentence. Akard v. State, 937 N.E.2d 811
Ind. 2010). In conducting our review, we may consider all aspects of the penal
consequences imposed by the trial court in sentencing, i.e., whether it consists
of executed time, probation, suspension, home detention, or placement in
community corrections, and whether the sentences are ordered to run
concurrently or consecutively. Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 2010).
[7] We do not look to see whether the defendant’s sentence is appropriate or if
another sentence might be more appropriate; rather, the test is whether
the sentence is “inappropriate.” Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 344 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2007). A defendant bears the burden of persuading this Court that
his sentence meets the inappropriateness standard, Anglemyer v. State, 868
N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218, and he must do so
under both parts of the test. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006). Our
resolution of whether a sentence is appropriate turns on myriad factors which
come to light in a given case, including our sense of the culpability of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1703-CR-606 | September 15, 2017 Page 3 of 9
defendant, the severity of the crime, and the damage done to others. Cardwell v.
State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008).
[8] To assess whether the sentence is inappropriate, we look first to the statutory
range established for the class of the offense. McCain pleaded guilty to one
count of Level 1 felony child molesting for which the sentencing range is a fixed
term of between twenty and fifty years, with the advisory sentence being thirty
years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4 (2014).
[9] The advisory sentence is the starting point to determine the appropriateness of
the sentence. Holloway v. State, 950 N.E.2d 803 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). A factor
appellate courts consider when determining the appropriateness of a deviation
from the advisory sentence is whether there is anything more or less egregious
about the offense committed by the defendant that makes it different from the
“typical” offense contemplated by the legislature when setting the advisory
sentence. Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852, 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
[10] We then look at the nature of the offense. Both parties acknowledge as we do
the deplorable nature of McCain’s offense. McCain, the twenty-three-year-old
mother of the one-year-old victim, placed her mouth on his penis while bathing
him and admitted to being sexually aroused while doing so. She did so after
having an oral sexual encounter with her boyfriend and a sexual conversation
via text messages with him after he left. Additionally, at her boyfriend’s urging
through those text messages, she recorded the incident on a borrowed cellphone
with the intent of sending the recording to him.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1703-CR-606 | September 15, 2017 Page 4 of 9
[11] Also relevant to our review is that McCain’s offense was a solitary occurrence
carried out at the urging of her boyfriend, but for which she readily accepted
responsibility in carrying out. Although the victim will, at some point, learn of
his mother’s victimization of him, unlike most victims of child molesting, he is
too young now to understand what happened to him and will likely not have a
memory of the event.
[12] Next, we look at the character of the offender. In this case, the record reflects
that McCain has no criminal history or history of the use of illegal substances.
She also has a history of employment. Further, McCain accepted responsibility
for her actions by pleading guilty to the highest-level felony with which she was
charged and left the issue of sentencing open to argument and the trial court’s
discretion. She admitted her crime to law enforcement when she was first
confronted and interviewed. The trial court acknowledged that the first time
she was in court she wished to plead guilty.
[13] McCain clearly committed her crime against a child under her care, custody,
and control, and who was significantly under the age provided for by statute.
Her victimization of her young son in an effort to please her boyfriend clearly is
deplorable. We conclude, nonetheless, that under these circumstances a
sentence above the advisory sentence of thirty years is inappropriate under these
circumstances.
[14] We remand this matter to the trial court for the purpose of imposing a thirty-
year advisory sentence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1703-CR-606 | September 15, 2017 Page 5 of 9
[15] Judgment reversed and remanded with instructions.
Najam, J., concurs.
Mathias, J., concurs with separate opinion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1703-CR-606 | September 15, 2017 Page 6 of 9
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jessica McCain, Court of Appeals Case No.
79A02-1703-CR-616
Appellant-Defendant,
v.
State of Indiana,
Appellee-Plaintiff.
Mathias, Judge, concurring.
[16] As a judge on the Court of Appeals of Indiana for the past seventeen years, I
find it to be an extremely difficult decision to reduce the sentence of a
convicted child molester, yet under the unique facts and circumstances of this
case, I reluctantly join my colleagues in doing so. Therefore, I concur with
Senior Judge Friedlander’s opinion and its conclusion that McCain’s maximum
forty-year sentence is inappropriately harsh in light of the nature of the offense
and the character of the offender. I write separately to emphasize the
importance of the advisory sentence set forth by our General Assembly when
considering cases such as the present one.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1703-CR-606 | September 15, 2017 Page 7 of 9
[17] Our supreme court has repeatedly held that the advisory sentence is the starting
point when determining the appropriateness of a sentence. See, e.g., Anglemeyer
v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218
(citing Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1081 (Ind. 2006)). Thus, all things
being equal, a person convicted of any level of felony should receive the
advisory sentence.
[18] Moreover, it has long been held that the maximum possible sentences are
generally most appropriate for the worst offenders and offenses. Payton v. State,
818 N.E.2d 493, 499 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (Mathias, J., concurring in part and
dissenting in part) (citing Buchanan v. State, 767 N.E.2d 967, 973 (Ind. 2002)),
trans. denied.
[19] It is clear here that McCain’s offense is deplorable, and indeed, I personally find
it to be unthinkable. So are most cases of Level 1 felony child molestation,
which is precisely why our General Assembly has set the advisory sentence at
thirty years. But McCain, who has no prior criminal history of any kind, and for
whom this was a single and immediately regretted incident, is not among the worst
offenders.2 In addition, the sentencing court found several mitigators, including
McCain’s immediate acceptance of responsibility and desire to plead guilty.
2
However, a first crime can warrant the maximum sentence when it involves multiple incidents of brutal
behavior. See, e.g., Heinzman v. State, 970 N.E.2d 214, 229 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (holding that defendant’s
maximum sentence on three counts of child molesting was not inappropriate given the heinous circumstances
of the crimes even though defendant did not have any prior criminal history at the time he committed his
crimes), trans. granted, aff’d in relevant part, 979 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2012); Booker v. State, 790 N.E.2d 491, 496
(Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (holding that, even though defendant had no criminal history, imposition of maximum
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1703-CR-606 | September 15, 2017 Page 8 of 9
[20] Accordingly, I concur in Judge Friedlander’s conclusion that McCain’s
maximum forty-year sentence is inappropriate and should be revised to the
advisory sentence of thirty years.
sentence on each count was not inappropriate given the heinous circumstances of the offenses), trans. denied;
see also Grimes v. State, No. 31A01-1609-CR-2190, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (affirming defendant’s
111-year sentence despite his lack of criminal history).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1703-CR-606 | September 15, 2017 Page 9 of 9