PETERSON v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] John Eric Peterson pleaded guilty to five counts of Level 1 felony child molesting, one count of Level 4 felony child molesting, Level 4 felony child exploitation, Level 5 felony possession of child pornography, and Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent. The Boone Circuit Court ordered Peterson to serve an aggregate sentence of 123 years executed in the Department of Correction. Peterson appeals his sentence and argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed consecutive sentences for four of his child molesting convictions contending the offenses were one continuous episode of criminal activity. Peterson also claims that his aggregate sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Peterson repeatedly molested his girlfriend's daughter for several years. The molestations began when the child was approximately four years old. Peterson penetrated the child's vagina with his fingers, and he touched her chest and genitals. When the child was eleven years old, she was left in Peterson's care because her mother was out of town, and he penetrated the child's vagina with his penis for the first time. On at least one occasion, Peterson used his cell phone to film himself molesting the child. Peterson lived with the child and her mother, and the child considered him to be her father figure.

[4] In 2022, after the child was interviewed at Sylvia's Child Advocacy Center, law enforcement officers obtained search warrants for Peterson's residence and his electronic devices. During the search of Peterson's cell phone, the officers found a video of a penis penetrating the child's vagina. A second video on the cell phone showed Peterson performing oral sex on an unidentified juvenile. And a third video showed an unknown male having sexual intercourse with a person who appeared to be a young juvenile female. The officers also found several photographs depicting child pornography on Peterson's cell phone.

[5] As a result of the investigation, the State ultimately charged Peterson with five counts of Level 1 felony child molesting, one count of Level 4 felony child molesting, Level 4 felony child exploitation, Level 5 felony possession of child pornography, and Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent.

[6] On February 19, 2025, approximately two weeks before his jury trial was scheduled to begin, Peterson pleaded guilty to all nine counts. Peterson stipulated that, between October 22, 2021, and January 2, 2022, he was over twenty-one years old and the child was under twelve years old. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 34. He admitted that he knowingly or intentionally performed or submitted to sexual intercourse and other sexual conduct with the child on multiple occasions, and such conduct included placing his mouth on her genitals and penetrating her vagina with his fingers. Peterson admitted that he performed or submitted to fondling or touching the child with the intent to satisfy or arouse his sexual desires. And he admitted to creating the video of the child performing sexual conduct and to possessing child pornography of an unknown child even younger than his girlfriend's child.

[7] During the sentencing hearing, the trial court found three aggravating circumstances: Peterson's prior Level 6 felony theft conviction, that the harm suffered by the victim was greater than the elements necessary to prove the offenses, and that Peterson was in a position of care, custody, and control over the victim. The trial court gave significant weight to the last factor noting that Peterson was a father figure to the victim. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 63. The trial court considered Peterson's open guilty plea to all of the charges as a mitigating circumstance. The court then ordered Peterson to serve thirty years for each Level 1 felony child molesting conviction, nine years for the Level 4 felony child molesting conviction, six years for the Level four felony child exploitation conviction, three years for the Level 5 felony possession of child pornography conviction, and one year for Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent conviction. The trial court found that four of the five Level 1 felony child molesting convictions were separate crimes of violence and ordered those sentences to be served consecutively to each other. The child pornography conviction involved a separate victim, and, therefore, the court ordered that three-year sentence to be served consecutively as well. The remaining sentences were ordered to be served concurrently to the sentence imposed for the Level 1 felony child molesting conviction described in Count I of the charging information. In the aggregate, Peterson was ordered to serve 123 years executed in the Department of Correction. The court also found that he was a credit-restricted felon and a sexually violent predator.

[8] Peterson now appeals his sentence.

The Trial Court Acted Within its Discretion When it Ordered Peterson to Serve Consecutive Sentences for the Level 1 Felony Child Molesting Convictions.

[9] Child molesting is classified as a crime of violence, and, therefore, the trial court was statutorily authorized to impose maximum and consecutive sentences for those convictions.¹ See Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2 (restricting the aggregate sentence allowed for felony convictions arising out of an episode of criminal conduct, unless the offense is classified as a crime of violence). And the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it decided to impose consecutive sentences for four of the five Level 1 felony child molesting convictions. See Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008) (noting that trial courts may consider “additional criminal activity directed to the same victim” and whether the nature of the crime is significant in determining whether to impose consecutive sentences); see also Smith v. State, 889 N.E.2d 261, 264 (Ind. 2008). Peterson, who was the victim's father figure, molested her repeatedly for approximately seven years, and he caused her significant and continuing psychological trauma.

Peterson's 123-year Aggregate Sentence is Not Inappropriate.

[10] Peterson also argues that his 123-year aggregate sentence is effectively a life sentence and is therefore inappropriate. Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), we may modify a sentence that we find is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Making this determination “turns on our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008).

[11] However, sentence modification under Rule 7(B) is reserved for “a rare and exceptional case.” Livingston v. State, 113 N.E.3d 611, 612 (Ind. 2018) (per curiam). Thus, when conducting this review, we will defer to the sentence imposed by the trial court unless the defendant demonstrates compelling evidence that portrays the nature of the offenses and his character in a positive light, such as showing a lack of brutality in the offenses or showing substantial virtuous character traits. Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[12] Because Peterson focuses his argument on the Level 1 felonies, we note that a person convicted of Level 1 felony child molesting may be sentenced to twenty to fifty years, with the advisory sentence being thirty years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4(c). For each Level 1 felony conviction, the trial court ordered Peterson to serve the advisory thirty-year sentence. The court then ordered four of the five sentences to be served consecutively, and the remaining thirty-year sentence to be served concurrently to the sentence imposed on Count I. Peterson was also ordered to serve a consecutive three-year advisory term for the Level 5 felony child pornography conviction. See I.C. § 35-50-2-6 (b). That offense involved a separate victim, and Peterson does not direct his argument on this issue toward the nature of that offense or the sentence imposed.

[13] Fifty-four-year-old Peterson argues that serving the remainder of his life in prison is inappropriate under Rule 7(B). Regarding the nature of his offenses, Peterson argues that there is no evidence that he brutalized the victim. But Peterson's repeated molestations of the victim spanning approximately seven years have had brutal and lasting impacts on the victim. And we are not persuaded by his argument that the specific psychological damage he caused his victim was inherent in his offenses. The report from the victim's therapist explains the victim's continued suffering, including her suicidal thoughts and her inability to form meaningful relationships, to trust others, and to feel safe. See Appellant's App. Vol. 2, pp. 73-75. Because Peterson began molesting the victim when she was four years old, he “interrupted her young neurodevelopment.” Id. at 75. The victim's therapist concluded that the victim is “only just beginning the hard, arduous task of undoing years of damage” and that Peterson's “repeated violations and abuse have and will continue to have profound consequences for this young girl—likely for a lifetime.” Id. at 74-75.

[14] Peterson does not argue that his character supports a revision of his sentence. Even so, we observe that the victim looked to Peterson as a father figure, and he continuously violated the victim's trust. Peterson did not present evidence that would portray his character in a positive light or show substantial virtuous character traits. And, although he pleaded guilty, he did so just two weeks before his scheduled trial, and his decision to do so was pragmatic given the video and photographic evidence the State had collected from his cell phone.

[15] For all of these reasons, Peterson has not persuaded us that his 123-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

Conclusion

[16] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed consecutive sentences under the circumstances of this case, and Peterson's sentence is not inappropriate. We therefore affirm the trial court's sentencing order.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   For this reason, we reject Peterson's argument that his child molesting offenses constitute a single episode of criminal conduct.

Mathias, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Pyle, J., concur.