Eduardo Lozano Maldonado, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Eduardo Lozano Maldonado appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court following his guilty plea to sexual misconduct with a minor as a level 4 felony and child solicitation as a level 5 felony. He contends the trial court abused its discretion during sentencing and that his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In February 2021, thirty-year-old Maldonado began corresponding with fifteen-year-old D.V. over Snapchat. He knew D.V.’s age, and she informed him that she was a freshman in high school. D.V. believed that Maldonado was nineteen years old. At some point during their correspondence, D.V. sent Maldonado a photograph via Snapchat of herself in underwear.

[3] On July 31, 2021, D.V. asked over Snapchat whether “anyone wanted to buy her nicotine.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 8. Maldonado responded to the request and drove to D.V.’s home. D.V. snuck out of her house and entered Maldonado's vehicle, and they drove to a gas station where he purchased vape pods for her. Maldonado then drove to a parking lot and began to kiss D.V. on the mouth and touched her vagina over her clothing. He removed D.V.’s shorts and had sexual intercourse with her in the passenger seat of his vehicle. Maldonado ejaculated on the seat of the vehicle so he cleaned up before taking D.V. home.

[4] On September 23, 2021, D.V.’s mother contacted the Kosciusko County Sheriff's Department after she discovered electronic communications between Maldonado and D.V. She reported that she believed that D.V. had snuck out of the house and had “a sexual encounter” with Maldonado. Id. On September 27, 2021, D.V. was interviewed by Safe Harbor Child Advocacy Center during which she disclosed the details of the sexual intercourse she had with Maldonado on July 31, 2021.

[5] On October 1, 2021, D.V.’s mother reactivated D.V.’s Snapchat account and communicated with Maldonado “as if she was [D.V.]” Id. at 9. During those communications, Maldonado admitted to having sexual intercourse with D.V. and provided details about the encounter. He also advised that he wanted to have further sexual encounters with D.V., asked to meet with her again, sent a photograph of his penis to D.V.’s Snapchat account, and requested multiple times for D.V. to send him nude photographs of herself. On October 3, 2021, Madonado drove to an area near D.V.’s residence to pick her up where he was met instead by law enforcement. When interviewed by law enforcement, Maldonado admitted to meeting D.V. and driving her around in his car, stating that he thought she was eighteen years old, and indicating that he had only kissed her on the cheek.

[6] On October 7, 2022, the State charged Maldonado with sexual misconduct with a minor as a level 4 felony and child solicitation as a level 5 felony. The State later amended the information to include a charge of rape as a level 3 felony. On September 30, 2024, the day of the scheduled jury trial, Maldonado pled guilty in an open plea to sexual misconduct with a minor and child solicitation in exchange for dismissal of the rape charge. On October 17, 2024, the court imposed a twelve-year executed sentence for the level 4 felony followed by a consecutive five-year fully suspended sentence for the level 5 felony.

Discussion

[7] Ind. 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 find] that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Under this rule, the burden is on the defendant to persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5 provides that a person who commits a level 4 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two and twelve years, with the advisory sentence being six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 provides that a person who commits a level 5 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between one and six years, with the advisory sentence being three years.

[8] Our review of the nature of the offenses reveals that Maldonado had sexual intercourse with a girl that he knew was only fifteen years old, sent her pictures of his penis, asked her to send him nude pictures of herself, and continued to solicit her for additional sexual encounters. The offenses caused significant trauma to his victim.

[9] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Maldonado pled guilty on the day of the scheduled jury trial almost two years after being charged in exchange for dismissal of the most serious of three charges. The presentence investigation report (“PSI”) indicates that Maldonado has a prior conviction for possession of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor. He was subject to a pretrial diversion agreement for that conviction when he committed the present offenses, and he was also charged with three new crimes and one infraction while on pretrial release in the present case. He pled guilty to one of those crimes and two were still pending at the time of sentencing. The PSI further indicates that the Indiana Risk Assessment System places Maldonado at a moderate risk to reoffend, that he owes a substantial child support arrearage to the mothers of his two young children, and that his probation officer recommended an executed sentence of twelve years.

[10] After due consideration, we conclude that Maldonado has not sustained his burden of establishing that the aggregate sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.¹

[11] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Maldonado's sentence.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   To the extent Maldonado argues the trial court abused its discretion during sentencing, we need not address this issue because we find that his sentence is not inappropriate. See Chappell v. State, 966 N.E.2d 124, 134 n.10 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (noting that any error in failing to consider the defendant's guilty plea as a mitigating factor is harmless if the sentence is not inappropriate) (citing Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504, 507 (Ind. 2007) (holding that, in the absence of a proper sentencing order, Indiana appellate courts may either remand for resentencing or exercise their authority to review the sentence pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)), reh'g denied; Mendoza v. State, 869 N.E.2d 546, 556 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (noting that, “even if the trial court is found to have abused its discretion in the process it used to sentence the defendant, the error is harmless if the sentence imposed was not inappropriate”), trans. denied), trans. denied. Even if we were to address Maldonado's abuse of discretion argument, we would not find it persuasive in light of the record.

Brown, Judge.

Chief Judge Altice and Judge Tavitas concur. Altice, C.J., and Tavitas, J., concur.