Skyler M. Reynolds, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Skyler Reynolds was convicted of Level 1 felony child molesting for acts involving his then-six-year-old daughter, A.R, and the trial court imposed a forty-year sentence. Reynolds contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character. Because we disagree, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In the fall of 2023, Reynolds and Bethany Compton lived in Vigo County with A.R. and their then-eight-year-old son A.C. One evening in early September, while Compton was at work, Reynolds asked A.R. to go to his bedroom and told her “I have a favor for you, but whatever the favor is, don't tell Mom or anybody else.” Tr. Vol. II p. 219. Reynolds instructed A.R. to take off her nightgown and “to climb in the bed.” Tr. Vol. II p. 225. Reynolds then instructed A.R. “to put [her] mouth on his thing” and “shoved [her] head on it.” Tr. Vol. II p. 225. Reynolds kept his penis in A.R.’s mouth for “awhile.” Tr. Vol. II p. 226.

[3] At some point, A.C. came into the doorway of Reynold's bedroom and saw A.R. fellating Reynolds. A.C. watched for “at least around a minimum of thirty (30) seconds” before Reynolds noticed him in the doorway. Tr. Vol. II p. 183. After noticing A.C., Reynolds told him to “go back to sleep and whatever you saw or heard, don't tell Mom, or something very bad will happen to both of you.” Tr. Vol. II p. 228. Once A.C. left the bedroom, Reynolds kept his penis in A.R.’s mouth “a little bit more[,]” until “white stuff came out.” Tr. Vol. II p. 228.

[4] Around this same time, A.C. and A.R. spent the weekend with their great-grandmother who, while bathing A.R., noticed that “she was very, very sore, and uh, she was very red, and um, just looked pretty bad in her private areas, and, and she told me that she was sore.” Tr. Vol. II p. 116. A.R. reported that her “vagina was red and bothering” her that day because Reynolds “had put ․ his mouth on it.” Tr. Vol. II p. 242.

[5] The Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) became involved with the family a short time later after DCS had received a report that A.C. had red marks on his neck and had possibly been abused. After interviewing A.C. and A.R., DCS determined that there had not been physical abuse and that the marks had been caused by A.R. “sucking on [A.C.’s] neck.” Tr. Vol. II p. 46. A.C. and A.R. were removed from their parents’ care and were placed with their great-grandmother. A.R. was re-interviewed after DCS received a report that A.R. was “a victim of sexual abuse” and “had been made to do sexual acts on her father.” Tr. Vol. II p. 61.

[6] Reynolds and Compton were interviewed and denied that any sexual abuse had taken place. Compton claimed to have a video recording proving that A.C. had actually walked in on her and Reynolds engaged in a sexual act, but never provided the recording to police or the trial court. Reynolds was taken into custody after the interview.

[7] After being taken into custody, Reynolds told a cellmate that he was afraid that police would find surveillance videos from inside the family's residence because “he was afraid [of] what they would see on there, and he said he used to play a game with the kids called hide the candy.” Tr. Vol. II p. 162. Reynolds did not elaborate on what “hide the candy” was, but “that's what he said he was worried about [police] seeing.” Tr. Vol. II p. 162. The cellmate indicated that he had seen Compton, described her as “a bigger lady[,]” and indicated that “[s]he's nowhere close to a six (6) year old kid.” Tr. Vol. II p. 162.

[8] On October 16, 2023, the State charged Reynolds with Level 1 felony child molesting and Level 4 felony child molesting. After a jury found Reynolds guilty of both counts, the trial court, at the State's request, dismissed the Level 4 felony count. The trial court sentenced Reynolds to a forty-year term of imprisonment.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Reynolds contends that his forty-year sentence is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “[t]he Court 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.” In analyzing such claims, we “concentrate less on comparing the facts of [the case at issue] to others, whether real or hypothetical, and more on focusing on the nature, extent, and depravity of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced, and what it reveals about the defendant's character.” Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (internal quotation omitted), trans. denied. The defendant bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Sanchez v. State, 891 N.E.2d 174, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[10] Reynolds was convicted of committing Level 1 felony child molesting in violation of Indiana Code section 35-42-4-3(a)(1). “A person who commits a Level 1 felony child molesting offense described in: (1) [Indiana Code section] 35-42-4-3(a)(1) ․ shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between twenty (20) and fifty (50) years, with the advisory sentence being thirty (30) years.” Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4(c).

[11] “The nature of the offense is found in the details and circumstances of the commission of the offense and the defendant's participation.” Perry v. State, 78 N.E.3d 1, 13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). The nature of Reynolds's offense is that he forced his then-six-year-old daughter to fellate him to the point of ejaculation. In sentencing Reynolds, the trial court noted that “the harm, injury, loss, or damage suffered by the victim was significant and greater than necessary to prove the commission of the offense.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 130. Furthermore, as a result of Reynolds's actions, both children “suffer from nightmares and anxiety.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 130. To say the least, Reynolds's actions have negatively affected the parent-child relationship with both A.C. and A.R.

[12] Turning to Reynolds's character, we note that “[t]he character of the offender is found in what we learn of the offender's life and conduct.” Perry, 78 N.E.3d at 13 (internal quotation omitted). “A defendant's criminal history is one relevant factor in analyzing his or her character[.]” Madden v. State, 162 N.E.3d 549, 564 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). The trial court found that Reynolds's criminal history was “minimal[.]” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 130. However, “[e]ven a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendant's character.” Prince v. State, 148 N.E.3d 1171, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).

[13] The fact that Reynolds violated a position of trust by molesting his daughter, to whom he was providing care, also reflects poorly on his character. See Walters v. State, 68 N.E.3d 1097, 1102–03 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (concluding that the defendant's violation of a position of trust reflected poorly on his character and supported an enhanced sentence), trans. denied. After having been caught in the act of molesting A.R. by A.C., Reynolds threatened his children, telling A.C. to “go back to sleep, and whatever you saw or heard, don't tell Mom, or something very bad will happen to both of you.” Tr. Vol. II p. 228. It reflects poorly on Reynolds's character that he would threaten to harm his own children if they reported his criminal conduct. Reynolds has failed to convince us that his forty-year sentence is inappropriate. See Sanchez, 891 N.E.2d at 176.

[14] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Bradford, Judge.

Weissmann, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.