THOMAS v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Joseph Thomas was convicted by a jury of six counts of Class A felony child molesting, two counts of Class B felony incest, and two counts of Class C felony child molesting. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive, executed sentences of thirty years for each of his Class A felony convictions, executed sentences of ten years for each of his Class B felony convictions, and executed sentences of four years for each of his Class C felony convictions. The court ordered the Class B felony and Class C felony convictions to be served concurrently with the Class A felony convictions for an aggregate sentence of one-hundred eighty years executed in the Department of Correction (DOC).

[2] Thomas appeals from the court's sentencing order, asking us to exercise our authority to review and revise his sentence downward under Appellate Rule 7(B). Concluding that some relief is warranted, we reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In June of 2009, then twenty-three-year-old Thomas moved into the home his sister Katie shared with her husband and two young daughters, M.C., who was eight years old, and K.C., who was five years old. Thomas was solely responsible for the care of Katie's children while she and her husband worked. In late December that same year, Katie asked her brother to move out of the house when a neighbor alleged that he had hit one of the girls.

[4] In 2018, Katie's husband passed away and Katie noticed her now-teenaged daughters began to demonstrate mental and emotional struggles. Katie testified that M.C. first began telling lies during her father's decline in health. And K.C. developed a bipolar disorder, PTSD, and schizoaffective disorder, worsening to the point that she began experiencing auditory and visual hallucinations.

[5] In January 2020, K.C. sought assistance for her mental health issues at Columbus Behavior Health. During treatment, she disclosed that she was molested by Thomas and by her sister, M.C. K.C.’s counselor reported the allegations and K.C. underwent a forensic interview. M.C. also was interviewed. After Thomas’ interview, he admitted sexually abusing both K.C. and M.C., but offered that they initiated the events.

[6] On February 7, 2024, the State filed amended charges against Thomas, alleging three Class A felonies, one Class B felony, and one Class C felony pertaining to his sexual abuse of K.C., and three Class A felonies, one Class B felony, and one Class C felony pertaining to his sexual abuse of M.C. A jury convicted Thomas of all counts.

[7] The sentencing discussion included the aggravating factor that Thomas was in a position of trust with M.C. and K.C. and was responsible for their care in their home when he committed the offenses. K.C. and M.C. submitted victim impact statements. They both offered that they were in therapy to address the trauma of Thomas’ abuse, and both experience fear, anxiety, nightmares, and suicidal ideation. And Thomas’ criminal history revealed that he received three juvenile adjudications—two for burglary, one for residential entry—during a three-month period in 1998 when he was twelve years old. As an adult, he was convicted of simple possession in Tennessee in 2007. Thomas offered that he committed the current offenses when he was twenty-three years old and was thirty-nine years old at sentencing, having accumulated no further criminal charges. He had experienced physical abuse which led to removal from his mother's care, both mental and physical abuse while in foster care, and suffered sexual abuse by his biological father's friends while living with him.

[8] The court found Thomas’ violation of his position of trust with the victims as an aggravating circumstance. But, in the court's opinion, Thomas’ troubled childhood negated his juvenile adjudications. The trial court found no other mitigating factors. The court then sentenced Thomas to an aggregate, executed sentence of one hundred eighty years—running all Class A felony sentences consecutively—in the DOC.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Thomas appeals, asking us to exercise our authority under Appellate Rule 7(B) to revise his sentence downward, focusing primarily on the consecutive nature of his Class A felony sentences.

[10] The Indiana Constitution authorizes this Court to review and revise a trial court's sentencing decision as provided by rule. Ind. Const. art. 7, § 6. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides we may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, “after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” The principal role of appellate review is to leaven the outliers, not to achieve a perceived correct sentence in each case. Conley v. State, 183 N.E.3d 276, 288 (Ind. 2022). Therefore, “we reserve our 7(B) authority for exceptional cases.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 160 (Ind. 2019) (per curiam).

[11] We begin our analysis of the nature of the offense by looking to the advisory sentence selected by the legislature as the appropriate sentence for the committed crime. Madden v. State, 162 N.E.3d 549, 563-64 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). The sentencing scheme as it applies in this case provides for a fixed term ranging between twenty and fifty years with an advisory sentence of thirty years for a Class A felony. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4 (2005). The sentencing range for a Class B felony is a fixed term of between six and twenty years, with an advisory sentence of ten years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5 (2005). And the sentencing range for a Class C felony is a fixed term of between two and eight years with an advisory sentence of four years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 (2005).

[12] Indeed, “[c]rimes against children are particularly contemptible.” Walker v. State, 747 N.E.2d 536, 538 (Ind 2001). Yet, all child molestations by their nature are heinous and likely inflict extensive permanent harm on the victims. And such harm is apparently accounted for in the advisory sentence. Here, the trial court imposed the advisory sentence for each of Thomas’ convictions.

[13] However, the court ordered the sentences for Thomas’ six Class A felony convictions involving two victims to be served consecutively, with the remaining sentences as to those same two victims to be served concurrently with them. Consecutive sentences may be imposed for crimes of violence, which include child molesting. Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2 (10) (2008). And consecutive sentences are justified when the defendant has committed his offenses against multiple victims. Tyler v. State, 903 N.E.2d 463, 468 (Ind. 2009).

[14] Nevertheless, just because consecutive sentencing for multiple victims is allowed, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that consecutive sentencing on all of the most serious counts relating to the victims is appropriate. And in this case, the trial court ordered all of the Class A felony sentences for each victim to be served consecutively for an aggregate sentence of one-hundred eighty years executed. Thomas notes, for argument's sake, that his sentence is greater than the consecutive maximum sentences he would have received had he been convicted of two counts of murder. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-3 (2005) (sixty-five year maximum sentence for murder).

[15] We find two cases to be particularly useful to our analysis here.¹ In Rivers v. State, 915 N.E.2d 141 (Ind. 2009), the defendant molested his niece on two dates, which led to three separate charges. And, Rivers’ offenses, like Thomas’, were not disclosed until later. A jury found Rivers guilty of all charges. Though he had no prior convictions and had maintained steady employment, the trial court sentenced him to consecutive sentences of thirty years on each Class A felony and a concurrent four-year sentence on the Class C felony, for an aggregate sentence of sixty years executed. Id. at 143. The Supreme Court addressed the sentence, noting that Rivers’ violation of his position of trust with his niece deserved a serious sanction. Id. at 143-44. However, the Court also observed that Rivers’ offenses occurred over a short period of time, he stopped on his own accord, “and did not commit any other offenses in the seven years that passed until he was charged.” Id. at 144. The Court held that imposing consecutive advisory sentences for his Class A felony convictions was unwarranted and directed the trial court to revise Rivers’ sentence to impose concurrent advisory (thirty-year) sentences. Id.

[16] And in Tyler, the defendant was convicted of two Class A felonies, two Class C felonies, and one Class D felony, for molesting five children originally entrusted to his girlfriend's care for babysitting. The girlfriend left the children under Tyler's supervision for around four hours after she left for another job. The trial court ordered the two forty-year sentences for the Class A felonies to be served consecutively, and in combination with the other sentences, resulted in an aggregate sentence of one-hundred and ten years.

[17] The Supreme Court found that Tyler's abuse of multiple victims justified “the imposition of consecutive sentences for the two class A felony convictions.” Id. at 468. However, the Court revised Tyler's sentence to sixty-seven and one-half years based on the Court's analysis of factors many of which are similar to those found in Thomas’ case. Tyler did not use physical force on the children, and none of the children was physically injured. He was not regularly in a position of control over them, having been asked on one occasion to supervise the children and did not seek out other opportunities to do so. And Tyler was twenty-two when he committed the offenses, having no previous convictions for child molesting or any other sex offense. The record in Tyler also supported mitigating circumstances, including a traumatic childhood, having engaged in highly abnormal and antisocial behavior at around seven years old. That behavior led to various institutional placements throughout his teenage years. And he had suicidal ideations at around nine or ten years old. He suffered physical and verbal abuse and had a brain tumor which affected his ability to control his behavior.

[18] Applying the rationale from those cases to the present case, we conclude that relief is warranted. Thomas’ sexual abuse of his two nieces, violating his position of trust in their home, deserves a serious sanction. There were two victims in this case which warrants consecutive sentencing. However, mitigating factors do impact our analysis. As in Rivers, Thomas’ abuse lasted for a short period of time (June to December), did not come to light until nine years later, and he did not commit any offenses in the intervening time. And as in Tyler, Thomas was twenty-three years old when he committed the offenses. As a minor, he had suffered physical abuse while in his mother's care, leading to his removal. He suffered mental and physical abuse while in foster care and was sexually abused by his biological father's friends. He reported the abuse and no charges were pressed.

[19] Thus, we revise Thomas’ sentence as follows. Thomas’ thirty-year sentences for his Class A felonies as to M.C. should be served concurrently with each other. His thirty-year sentences for his Class A felonies as to K.C. should be served concurrently with each other, but served consecutively to his Class A felony sentences for M.C. The remainder of his sentences should be served concurrently with his Class A felony sentences as respects each victim, for an aggregate sentence of sixty years.

Conclusion

[20] In light of the foregoing, we reverse and remand the trial court's sentencing order for revision consistent with this opinion.

[21] Reversed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State urges us to affirm Thomas’ sentence and directs us to the decisions in Faith and Estes v. State, 827 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. 2005). However, both cases resulted in sentence reductions and involve different circumstances than in the present case. In Faith, a teacher groomed a twelve-year-old student and, though charged with thirty-six counts of Class A felony child molesting, pleaded guilty to three. He received three consecutive thirty-year sentences, for an executed sentence of ninety years with twenty years suspended. Ultimately, the Supreme Court revised Faith's sentence to three consecutive thirty-year sentences with thirty years suspended, for an executed sentence of sixty years. 131 N.E.3d at 160. And in Estes, the defendant was sentenced to two hundred sixty-seven years for fourteen counts arising from a series of molestations of two victims over a period of years. The Court found that “Estes committed the offenses against two victims, so at least one consecutive sentence is appropriate[,]” and several mitigating circumstances existed, such that his sentences should be revised to “four consecutive standard terms for a Class A felony, a total of 120 years[.]” 827 N.E.2d at 29. Those cases are dissimilar to Thomas’ in part because they involve predatory (actively seeking out victims) rather than opportunistic behavior (occurring during unique circumstances where Thomas had nowhere else to go) occurring over a far longer period of time.

Shepard, Senior Judge.

Brown, J., and Scheele, J., concur.