Tyler Israel Homrighausen, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Tyler Israel Homrighausen appeals his sentence following his conviction for Level 4 felony sexual misconduct with a minor. Homrighausen raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether his sentence of twelve years with two years suspended to probation is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In May 2023, Homrighausen, who was twenty-one years old, had sexual intercourse on multiple occasions with fourteen-year-old A.M. In the early morning hours of May 20, Homrighausen picked up A.M. from her residence without the knowledge of A.M.’s guardian, had sexual intercourse with her at a strip mall in Dearborn County, and then drove into Ohio with her. A.M.’s custodian reported A.M. missing that morning, and law enforcement officers located her in Youngstown, Ohio, with Homrighausen a few days later.

[3] The State charged Homrighausen with Level 3 felony promotion of child sexual trafficking and Level 4 felony sexual misconduct with a minor. In an ensuing interview with law enforcement officers, Homrighausen admitted that he knew A.M.’s age when he had engaged in sexual intercourse with her. He further stated that he traded “marijuana for sex” with her. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 98. And the State also learned that Homrighausen was on probation in Ohio at the time of his actions in Indiana.

[4] Homrighausen agreed to plead guilty to the Level 4 felony charge in a written plea agreement. In exchange for his plea, the State agreed to dismiss the Level 3 felony charge. The plea agreement left Homrighausen's sentence open to the trial court's discretion.

[5] Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court found the following aggravating circumstances: Homrighausen's criminal history, which consists of five prior drug- and driving-related offenses; that he was on probation at the time of the instant offense; that Homrighausen has a history of violating conditions of probation; the harm suffered by A.M. represented “significant” and “ongoing psychological trauma”; A.M.’s age at the time of the offenses and Homrighausen's apparent position of trust over her; the nature and circumstances of Homrighausen traveling from Youngstown, Ohio, in the middle of the night to pick up A.M., have sexual intercourse with her, and drive back into Ohio with her; Homrighausen's multiple inconsistent statements to law enforcement officers, the court, and others, which demonstrated a “pervasive pattern of untruthfulness” and a “lack of credibility, remorse, and accountability”; and Homrighausen's risk to reoffend. Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 155, 157. The court found Homrighausen's guilty plea to be a mitigating circumstance, but the court assigned little weight to it based on the “overwhelming evidence” of Homrighausen's guilt and the benefit Homrighausen received from the dismissal of the Level 3 felony charge. Id. at 162. The court also found Homrighausen's family support, age, high school diploma, and vocational training to be mitigating circumstances, although the court found them to not carry significant weight. The court then found the aggravating factors to “substantially outweigh” the mitigating factors, and the court sentenced Homrighausen to a term of twelve years with two years suspended to probation. Id. at 165.

[6] This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] On appeal, Homrighausen argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. 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).

[8] 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 offense 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).

[9] The sentencing range for a Level 4 felony is two to twelve years with an advisory term of six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5 (2022). Here, the trial court sentenced Homrighausen to twelve years with two years suspended to probation after finding numerous significant aggravating factors and concluding that those aggravating factors substantially outweighed a handful of minor mitigating circumstances.

[10] Homrighausen argues that his sentence is inappropriate because the harm A.M. suffered was not out of the ordinary, and, further, she willingly engaged in the conduct. He also argues that he is young; he is a father; he is a high school graduate with vocational skills; he has family support; and he took responsibility and expressed remorse. He further asserts that his apparent self-diagnoses of various mental illnesses merit consideration, and he is not “the worst of the worst.” Appellant's Br. at 14.

[11] But Homrighausen's arguments simply seek to have our Court disregard the deference owed to trial courts in sentencing matters. Regarding the nature of the offense, he drove hundreds of miles in the middle of the night to cross state lines and pick up a fourteen year old to engage her in sexual activities. As the trial court found, Homrighausen knew A.M.’s age, and Homrighausen's conduct has caused A.M. significant psychological trauma. Regarding his character, Homrighausen is young yet already has five prior convictions and repeated failed attempts at complying with probation. Further, Homrighausen has not presented our Court with any compelling evidence that portrays the nature of the offense and his character in a positive light.

[12] For all of these reasons, we affirm Homrighausen's sentence.

[13] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

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