Julio C. Rios, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Julio C. Rios appeals his convictions on four counts of child molesting as class A felonies and seven counts of child molesting as class C felonies. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for severance of the charges and that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Rios and his wife, Lissy, lived in Elkhart, Indiana until 2014 when Rios moved to Texas. While living in Elkhart, the couple attended a local church. Rios was involved in the men's ministry, and Lissy was the head of the children's ministry. Rios and Lissy would frequently gather with church members and their families outside of church. This included Rios's brother and his children. Many gatherings took place at S.D.’s house in Goshen, and other gatherings took place at S.C. and G.C.’s house.

[3] Victim 5 was born in February 2000 and is Rios's biological niece and goddaughter. Growing up, Rios would take her for ice cream and pick her up from her after-school club. Victim 5 frequently spent the night at Rios's house. At some point, Rios began to touch Victim 5 in a manner that made her uncomfortable. One night when she was at his house in Elkhart, she saw Rios in a towel after taking a shower, and she lay down on the floor and pretended to be asleep. Rios came over and lay down behind her and pressed his body against her. He lifted her “little kids night dress that had like different types of characters; princesses, and things like that” on it and pressed his naked penis against her “butt.” Transcript Volume III at 149. Victim 5 moved around to make Rios aware that she was awake, and that is when he stopped.

[4] Victim 4 is S.C and G.C.’s daughter and was close friends with Victim 5. Her father went to high school with Rios, and her family lived with Rios and Lissy when they first moved to Elkhart when she was around ten years old. Victim 4 considered Rios “like a father” and thought of him as the “fun adult” because he would frequently take all the children to buy snacks or to the park. Id. at 92-93. At some point, Rios started making Victim 4 uncomfortable and began hugging her from behind which she thought was strange. When she was around eleven years old, she went to Rios's house to see a litter of puppies. Rios handed her one of the puppies and then moved behind her, started hugging her, and placed his hands inside her shirt and touched her breast. Victim 4 was too young to be wearing a bra. Rios moved his hand around on her breast and only removed his hand from her shirt when Victim 5 entered the room. After this incident, Victim 4 and Victim 5 spoke to each other about Rios touching them inappropriately. They did not think they would be believed so they decided not to tell anyone.

[5] A few months later, when Victim 5 was around eleven years old, Rios began to teach her “how to drive.” Id. at 143. He would have her sit on his lap and hold the steering wheel while he operated the brakes and gas pedal. He would unzip his pants and “play with himself” behind her. Id. Victim 5 could feel Rios's hand going up and down, his breathing became deep and fast, and then she heard him “shuffling paper” like “maybe he was ․ cleaning himself.” Id. at 144. This happened on multiple occasions and once while driving near Victim 5's elementary school in Elkhart. Victim 4 was also in the car on one occasion when they stopped by the church parking lot. Victim 5 was in the backseat when Rios placed Victim 4 on his lap. Victim 4 was holding the steering wheel when she heard Rios unzip his pants and begin touching himself. Victim 4 could feel Rios's “private area.” Id. at 99. The same thing also happened to Victim 5 that day.

[6] Victim 4's younger sister, Victim 3, was frequently around Rios beginning at the age of four. Rios was her godfather, she considered him to be part of her family, and she called him “uncle.” Id. at 59. Rios would often join Victim 3, her younger sister, Victim 2, as well as Victim 1, to play when they were at church-family gatherings. One time at S.D.’s house, Rios followed Victim 3 to the bathroom, locked the door, and began touching Victim 3's breasts inside her shirt. Victim 3 told Rios to stop, and she tried to exit the bathroom, but Rios would not let her leave. Rios told Victim 3 not to tell anyone about what had happened. She did not tell anyone about the bathroom incident because she was “too scared to say anything.” Id. at 64. When Victim 3 was around ten years old, she was showering at her house when Rios, who was visiting from Texas, entered the bathroom. When Victim 3 exited the shower naked, Rios began touching her breasts. He told her not to tell anyone.

[7] Victim 1 is S.D.’s granddaughter and the daughter of A.P. A.P. moved to Elkhart from Mexico in 2011 when Victim 1 was five years old. They moved in with S.D. and began attending church where they met Rios and Lissy. They became close with Rios and Lissy, and Victim 1 considered Rios an “uncle.” Transcript Volume II at 36. During gatherings at S.D.’s house, A.P. noticed that Rios “sometimes would just disappear.” Id. at 46. He would invite Victim 1 to “go play barbies” with him and take her into her bedroom alone. Transcript Volume III at 16. On multiple occasions, Rios touched Victim 1 beneath her shirt, and he eventually began touching and rubbing “her private area and [her] butt.” Id. at 18. His finger would go inside the “slit” area of her vagina but did not go completely inside of her. Id. This happened multiple times and caused Victim 1 pain. On multiple occasions, Rios cleaned Victim 1's “private” and “butt” with a wipe and then he would lick inside “the crack of [her] butt.” Id. at 21. Rios would only stop when he heard “people coming.” Id.

[8] On multiple occasions at S.C. and G.C.’s house, when Victim 1 was six or seven years old, she observed Rios touching himself and holding his penis as he stood over a “Dora the Explorer rug” in G.C.’s daughters’ bedroom. Id. at 22. She saw something “come out” of his penis and onto the rug, which at the time she thought was “pee.” Id. On another occasion, Rios “took off his pants” and “aggressive[ly]” “rubbed his penis against [Victim 1's] vagina” as she was lying on a bed with her legs apart. Id. at 22. This made Victim 1 feel “awkward and weird and disgusting.” Id. at 25.

[9] A.P. began noticing that Victim 1 “wouldn't like [Rios] to touch her.” Id. at 47. Also, when Victim 1 was seven years old, A.P. saw blood in her underwear Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 24A-CR-2848 | December 12, 2025 Page 5 of 11 even though she had not yet started her period. When asked about the blood, Victim 1 told A.P. that she had hit herself. After Rios moved to Texas, A.P. observed that Victim 1 was cutting herself and eventually she became suicidal. Victim 1 disclosed to A.P. that Rios had sexually abused her.

[10] Because Victim 1's disclosure included information that indicated that G.C.’s daughters may be involved, A.P. contacted G.C. G.C. asked Victims 2, 3, and 4 if Rios had ever sexually abused them, and they all stated that he had. The sexual abuse was reported to police on April 4, 2019. Victim 1, who was twelve years old at the time, participated in a forensic interview during which she disclosed the sexual abuse by Rios. She also identified Victims 2, 3, and 4 as victims. Victims 2, 3, and 4, who were 12, 14, and 19 years old at the time, participated in interviews during which they each disclosed that Rios had sexually abused them. During the course of the investigation, Victim 5's name was disclosed, and, during a subsequent police interview, she also disclosed that Rios had sexually abused her.

[11] On April 23, 2020, the State charged Rios with four counts of child molesting as class A felonies and nine counts of child molesting as class C felonies. On April 16, 2024, Rios filed a motion to sever the four class A felony counts from the nine class C felony counts. He argued that the four counts relating to Victim 1 should be severed from the six counts relating to Victims 2, 3, and 4, and that those counts should be further severed from the three counts relating to Victim 5. Following a hearing, the court denied the motion.

[12] A four-day jury trial began on September 30, 2024. At the start of trial, Rios renewed his motion for severance, and the court denied the motion but noted his continuing objection. The jury found Rios guilty of four counts of child molesting as class A felonies and seven counts of child molesting as class C felonies.¹ Following a sentencing hearing, the court sentenced Rios to consecutive forty-five-year sentences on each of the class A felonies and six-year sentences on each of the class C felonies, for an aggregate sentence of 222 years.

Discussion

[13] Rios first asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for severance “which was a severance as a matter of right, since many of the counts were joined based upon a ‘same or similar’ concept.” Appellant's Brief at 4. The State responds that the court “properly found that Rios was not entitled to severance as a mandatory right” because the “record shows that [his] crimes were a series of acts connected together or constituting parts of the same scheme or plan to molest young girls within [his] close-knit church family.” Appellee's Brief at 17.

[14] Ind. Code § 35-34-1-11(a) governs motions for severance and provides that a defendant has a right to severance of charges if the charges “have been joined ․ solely on the ground that they are of the same or similar character.” “In all other cases,” the trial court “shall grant a severance of offenses whenever the court determines that severance is appropriate to promote a fair determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence of each offense” based on certain factors. Id. “The degree of deference owed to a trial court's ruling on a motion for severance depends on the basis for joinder” of the offenses:

Where the offenses have been joined solely because they are of the same or similar character, a defendant is entitled to severance as a matter of right. Ind. Code § 35-34-1-11(a) (2008). The trial court thus has no discretion to deny such a motion, and we will review its decision de novo. Jackson v. State, 938 N.E.2d 29, 36 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)[, trans. denied]. But where the offenses have been joined because the defendant's underlying acts are connected together, we review the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion. Craig v. State, 730 N.E.2d 1262, 1265 (Ind. 2000).

Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1264 (Ind. 2015). In determining whether joined offenses are connected by the defendant's “underlying acts” and are not merely of the “same or similar character,” “we ask whether the operative facts establish a pattern of activity beyond mere satisfaction of the statutory elements.” Id. at 1264, 1266. A defendant's “modus operandi” and “motive” are relevant to determining whether charges are connected by the defendant's underlying acts and are not merely similar in character based on the statutory elements. Id. at 1266.

[15] Our review of the charges here reveals that they were not joined solely because they were of the same or similar character. Indeed, the operative facts establish that Rios engaged in a pattern of activity with his victims beyond mere satisfaction of the statutory elements. The molestations occurred during overlapping time periods, at the same few locations, and the victims were all part of the same tight-knit church family with whom Rios occupied a position of trust. Moreover, the offenses were connected by Rios's underlying acts as the molestations of Victims 2, 3, 4, and 5 were all discovered as a result of the investigation into Victim 1's disclosure that Rios had repeatedly sexually abused her. Rios has failed to establish that his offenses were joined solely on the ground that they are of the same or similar character such that he was entitled to severance as a matter of right. The trial court did not err in denying his motion for severance.² See Philson v. State, 899 N.E.2d 14, 17 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (finding no right to severance of rape and child molesting charges because the allegation with respect to the rapes of one victim surfaced in the course of the police investigation into the molestations of a different victim and thus the crimes were “sufficiently linked together such that severance was not mandated”), trans. denied.

[16] Rios also challenges the sentence imposed by the trial court as inappropriate. 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).

[17] Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4(a) provides that a person who commits a class A felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between twenty and fifty years, with the advisory sentence being thirty years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(a) provides that a person who commits a class C felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two and eight years, with the advisory sentence being four years. The trial court here imposed forty-five-year sentences for each of the class A felony convictions and six-year sentences for each of the class C felony convictions. Thus, Rios did not receive the maximum sentence for any of his individual crimes and his aggregate 222-year sentence is below the maximum allowable aggregate sentence.

[18] Our review of the nature of the offenses reveals that Rios committed eleven counts of child molesting, four of those offenses being of the highest class. At the time of the offenses, his victims were all under the age of twelve. Rios gained the trust of his young victims by being regarded as “kind of like” the “fun uncle.” Transcript Volume III at 12. Rios makes no argument that the nature of his offenses warrants a sentence reduction, conceding that “it would be inappropriate to argue that the crime of child molestation is not a serious crime with serious consequences for the victims.” Appellant's Brief at 11.

[19] Our review of Rios's character reveals that he has a criminal history consisting of a felony conviction for strangulation and two misdemeanor convictions. He has also admittedly violated a prior probationary term, and, at the time of sentencing, he had pending charges of two counts of child molesting as class A felonies. We cannot say that Rios has met his burden to establish that his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character.³

[20] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Rios's convictions and the sentence imposed by the trial court.

[21] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The trial court granted Rios's motion for a directed verdict on one of the class C felony counts, and the jury acquitted Rios of one of the class C felony counts.

2.   Rios asserts only that he was entitled to mandatory severance and he makes no argument that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion because severance was appropriate to promote a fair determination of his guilt or innocence of each offense. Accordingly, he has waived any abuse of discretion claim.

3.   Rios argues that “a more appropriate sentence” would be “a total sentence of 51 years.” Appellant's Brief at 11-12. We observe that “the question under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). In addition, Rios was fifty years old at the time of sentencing, and he acknowledges that even with the sentence reduction he requests, “it is unlikely that he will ever see the light of day.” Appellant's Brief at 24.

Brown, Judge.

Felix, J., and Scheele, J., concur.