CHILDS III v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Following a jury trial, Raymond Ronald Lee Childs, III (“Childs”), appeals his convictions and sentence for six counts of murder, felonies, and one count of attempted murder, a Level 1 felony. We affirm.

Issues

[2] Childs raises three issues on appeal, which we consolidate and restate as follows:

I.  Whether any errors in the exclusion of some of Childs’ proffered evidence and in the admission of some of Detective William Vasquez's testimony were harmless.

II. Whether Child's 360-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate in light of his character.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In January of 2021, Childs was seventeen years old and lived on Adams Street in Indianapolis with his father, Raymond Childs, Jr. (“Father”); his stepmother, Kezzie Childs (“Stepmother”); his nineteen-year-old brother, Elijah Childs (“Elijah”), whose nickname was “Savoe”; Elijah's pregnant girlfriend, Kiara Hawkins (“Kiara”); Childs’ fifteen-year-old brother, X.C.; and Childs’ thirteen-year-old sister, R.C. Tr. v. 6 at 128. Childs’ other siblings who lived elsewhere were his sisters Kayla Smith (“Kayla”), Naomi Childs (“Naomi”), and T'ana King (“T'ana”). Some of Childs’ siblings were half brothers and sisters, but the siblings considered each other to be like full siblings.¹

[4] The Childs home on Adams Street was a bilevel house in which the children's bedrooms were on the first floor and the parents’ bedroom was in the basement. Stepmother had recently had a surgery which made it difficult for her to walk. Therefore, Father had installed cameras in the first floor living room so that Stepmother could see what was occurring upstairs when she was unable to walk up the basement stairs.

[5] The Childs family had three pitbull dogs, one of which was named Rocky and was generally kept in the living room. Rocky barked loudly and acted aggressively toward people entering the home who did not live there. Therefore, Rocky was often chained up by the fireplace in the living room. The Childs family also owned multiple cars, one of which was Father's white Chrysler LHS. Father also owned three firearms. The largest was an AK-47 style semiautomatic gun called a Draco (“Draco”) that fired 7.62-millimeter (“7.62-mm”) bullets and normally was kept in a chest in the basement. The other two firearms were handguns that Father either carried on his person or kept in the basement on top of his dresser.

[6] On January 23, T'ana was visiting the Childs home. The other people in the home that day were Father, Stepmother, Elijah, Kiara, R.C., and Childs. At around five or six o'clock that evening, X.C. and R.C. went to a skating rink and returned home at around 11:00 p.m. When they got home, Father came upstairs from the basement and learned that Childs had left the home without permission to visit his girlfriend. Father was upset and instructed Elijah to contact Childs and tell him to come home. Elijah did so, but Childs took “a long time” to get home. Tr. v. 3 at 92.

[7] Father, Stepmother, and T'ana went down to the basement to eat. When Childs got home, he came down to the basement and apologized to Father. By this time, Father had “cooled off” and responded to Childs, “I got you. I got you later on. Don't worry about it.” Id. Father then stated, “I'm going to get you like my ․ dad got me.” Id. at 93. The latter statement referred to Childs’ paternal grandfather's practice of “whoop[ing]” Father in his bed while he was asleep during Father's childhood. Id. Father had done the same to his children at times in the past.

[8] Childs went back upstairs after that conversation. T'ana then took X.C. to get some food, dropped him off at the Childs home at around midnight, and left. When T'ana last saw Childs that evening, he had been wearing a black hoodie and black jeans. When X.C. got home, Childs was sitting in the living room, listening to music on the T.V. and still wearing the black hoodie and black jeans he had been wearing earlier. R.C. was in her bedroom, Elijah and Kiara were in Elijah's bedroom, and Father and Stepmother were downstairs in their bedroom. Rocky was chained up in the living room.

[9] A little after midnight, Father and Stepmother asked X.C. to bake them some cookies. X.C. did so and took them downstairs. Father then asked X.C. to get him some water from the downstairs bathroom. While X.C. was in the bathroom, he could hear what was going on upstairs but did not hear the front door open or Rocky bark. The only entrances to the house were the front door on the first floor and a second entrance in the basement.

[10] X.C. then heard two gunshots, looked outside the bathroom door, and saw Father getting up from his bed. X.C. stepped out of the bathroom, heard a third gunshot, and heard Father yell, “What's going on up there?!” Tr. v. 6 at 159. R.C. shouted from upstairs, “He shot him. He shot Savoe.” Id. X.C. started to run towards the laundry room in the basement and saw Childs coming down the basement stairs; X.C. could see Childs from his feet up to “the bridge of his nose.” Id. at 169. Childs was still wearing the black hoodie and black jeans.

[11] X.C. ran into the laundry room to hide. While there, he heard Father and Childs “tussling,” heard Father say, “Raymond, I love you,” and then heard six to eight more gunshots. Id. at 160. After the gunshots stopped, X.C. looked out of the laundry room towards his parents in the bed and saw that they both had been shot. X.C. did not see Childs there, so X.C. ran outside through the basement entrance.

[12] As X.C. ran up the driveway and onto Adams Street, he heard the basement entrance door close behind him. He turned around, saw Childs standing at the basement door with Father's Draco firearm in his hands, and made “eye contact” with Childs. Id. at 161. X.C. continued to run up Adams Street toward East 36th Street. As X.C. approached the intersection, he slowed down, stopped, and saw Childs standing about two feet away. X.C. offered Childs forty dollars, said, “I won't say nothing,” and asked Childs not to kill him. Id. at 162. Childs then shot X.C. in the left leg, and X.C. fell to the ground with his head resting on his left arm. Childs then shot X.C. in the left forearm.

[13] After a few moments of silence, X.C. opened his eyes and saw that Childs was no longer there. X.C. limped to a nearby house, banged on the door, and called out for help. The occupants of the house, the Joneses, saw X.C. wounded on the porch and called 9-1-1. When the police arrived minutes later, X.C. told them what had happened and that Childs was the perpetrator. Police found four fired 7.62-mm casings on the sidewalk in front of the Jones home and near the front porch. The fired casings matched Father's Draco firearm that was later found in Childs’ possession.

[14] X.C. was taken to the hospital, where police questioned him about his family. X.C. told the police, “He shot them. He killed them all.” Tr. v. 3 at 158. When police asked to whom X.C. was referring, X.C. repeatedly replied, “Raymond Ronald Lee Childs III.” Id. A fired bullet subsequently recovered from X.C.’s body matched Father's Draco firearm.

[15] Approximately one hour after responding to the 9-1-1 call, officers went to the Childs home to investigate. They discovered that Father's white Chrysler was missing. They found a barking dog in the home but no sign of forced entry. The security camera in the living room had been removed from its bracket and was lying on the living room couch. On the first floor they discovered R.C.’s dead body in her bedroom. She had been killed by a single gunshot to the chest. The police found an unfired 7.62-mm round in the hallway, and a fired 7.62-mm casing and bullet in R.C.’s bedroom. The bullet matched Father's Draco firearm.

[16] On the first floor police also discovered Elijah's and Kiara's dead bodies in Elijah's bedroom. Elijah had been killed by a single gunshot to the back of his head. Kiara, who was nine months pregnant, had also been killed by a single gunshot to her head, which also caused her unborn child to die. Police found two fired 9-millimeter (“9-mm”) casings in Elijah's bedroom. The casings, bullets, and bullet fragment found in or near Elijah and Kiara were fired from the 9-mm handgun that was later found empty next to Father's body.

[17] Downstairs, police discovered Father's and Stepmother's dead bodies. They found two handguns near Father's body, a silver .40 S&W caliber (“.40 S&W”) Smith & Wesson and a black 9-mm SCCY. The .40 S&W gun had not been fired, and police found no fired .40 S&W casings. The 9-mm handgun was empty and the slide was locked back, consistent with being fired until it ran out of ammunition. Police found a fired 9-mm casing near the foot of the basement stairs. They found other fired 9-mm and 7.62-mm casings scattered around closer to Father's and Stepmother's bodies. Eleven fired casings and one fired bullet jacket were found downstairs. The fired casings consisted of six 9-mm casings and five 7.62-mm casings. The fired 9-mm casings matched the 9-mm handgun found near Father's body. The 7.62-mm casings matched the Draco firearm.

[18] Stepmother was killed by multiple gunshot wounds entering her chest, abdomen, and buttocks. Two bullets and one fragment were recovered from her chest cavity, rib, and back. Father was killed by multiple gunshot wounds to his arm, chest, abdomen, thigh, back, shoulder, buttocks, and jaw. The fired bullets and bullet fragments recovered from Father's and Stepmother's bodies matched either the 9-mm gun found near Father's body or the Draco firearm.

[19] Following the shootings, Childs drove Father's Chrysler to his girlfriend, Janiah's, house. He arrived with garbage bags filled with clothes and informed Janiah that he would be living with her. Childs and Janiah then went to sleep. The following morning, Janiah saw a notice on a police alert app about the shootings around Childs’ house. Janiah and Childs then went to the Childs home. Other Childs family members were also at the Childs home that morning, including T'ana and two of Childs’ adult cousins, Alonzo Velez (“Lonzo”) and Anthony Velez (“Ant”), with whom Childs briefly interacted.

[20] Childs and Janiah returned to Janiah's house, and Childs then asked Janiah to drop him off at an apartment on the south side of Indianapolis, which she did. Later that afternoon, Childs called Lonzo and informed him where he was. Lonzo then drove to the apartment on the south side with his brother, Ant, and Childs came out of the apartment to speak with them. Childs asked Lonzo to take him to Gary where Childs’ mother lived, but Lonzo refused. Childs told Lonzo that Father had left a gun in the trunk of the white Chrysler, but Lonzo and Ant did not know Father to keep his gun in the car. Childs went back into the apartment and came out with Father's Draco firearm wrapped in a white shirt. Lonzo knew that Father had normally kept two magazines with the gun, but when Childs brought the gun out, it had only one magazine with it. At some point while Childs was with Lonzo and Ant, Childs said that he did not think that X.C. was going to make it because “[h]e was hit too bad.” Tr. vol. IV at 187. Because Ant had a license to carry a handgun and Childs did not, Ant took possession of the Draco.

[21] Childs got into Lonzo's car, and Lonzo dropped Ant off at Ant's home. Lonzo then drove to the Childs home to “check in on the scene,” and then to Janiah's home. Id. at 184-85. Lonzo saw Father's white Chrysler LHZ parked at Janiah's home. Lonzo and Childs then drove to Lonzo's home.

[22] On the morning of January 25, police went to Lonzo's home and arrested Childs. The police seized Childs’ cell phone and later had it analyzed. When Ant learned of Childs’ arrest, he turned in the Draco firearm to the police; however, Ant had wiped off the Draco because he had handled it and did not want his fingerprints on it.

[23] On January 28, the State charged Childs with six counts of murder, one count of attempted murder, and one count of carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor. On July 9, 2024, Childs filed a pretrial notice of intent to offer evidence concerning the course of the police investigation into the shootings. Specifically, Childs intended to offer evidence about: a 2007 custody dispute between Father and Childs’ mother, Rhonda Smith (“Smith”); a threat Smith had made to Father in 2007; a threat made by Smith's ex-boyfriend, Larry Buchanan (“Buchanan”), against Father in 2016; a threat made against Father by one of his daughters in 2016; a Facebook post made by Buchanan in January 2021, after the murders; a dispute between the Childs family and another family that resulted in shots fired at the Childs home in 2020; three prior police reports where ballistics evidence matched weapons involved in this case; and a 9-1-1 call about a yellow Hummer seen a few blocks away from the Childs home after gunshots were heard on the day of the shootings. At the subsequent hearing, Childs added a claim about a statement by T'ana about the possibility the crimes were connected to Elijah.

[24] Ultimately, the court allowed Childs to present evidence about the yellow Hummer, Buchanan's 2021 Facebook post, Buchanan's 2016 threat against Father, and the three prior criminal cases involving ballistic matches to the weapons Childs had allegedly used in the January 2021 shootings. The trial court ruled that the remaining proffered evidence was inadmissible because it lacked a connection to Childs, was too attenuated to the 2021 shootings, and/or was speculative.

[25] On October 7, Childs filed a motion to exclude testimony to be presented by the State regarding the forensic analysis of Childs’ cell phone on the grounds that it violated his Confrontation Clause rights and was more prejudicial than probative under Indiana Rule of Evidence 403. Following a hearing on that motion, the court denied it.

[26] Childs’ jury trial was held on October 17 through 25. The State produced testimony from many witnesses, including X.C. X.C. testified about what had happened during the January 23-24 shootings and testified that he was “confident” and “a hundred percent” sure that it was Childs who came down the basement stairs before Father and Step-Mother were shot, chased X.C. down the street, and shot X.C. on the street. Tr. v. 6 at 161, 163.

[27] The State also presented the testimony of Detective William Vasquez, a digital forensic examiner with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department who had extensive training and experience in digital forensic examination. Detective Vasquez had examined Childs’ cell phone and extracted information from it, including the web browser history and location data. The browser history showed that, at 11:06 p.m. on January 23, 2021, the following Google searches were conducted on Childs’ phone: (1) “If you get shot clean through the palm, how much will your hand heal? Will you have a hole in your hand for life?” and (2) “[C]an you die from a shot to the hand[?]” Ex. v. 3 at 88. The report of that web history was admitted into evidence as an exhibit, over Childs’ objection.

[28] Detective Vasquez had used a program called Graykey to extract location data from Childs’ cell phone, and he used a program called Cellebrite Physical Analyzer to turn the location data into a readable format (“the Cellebrite report”). The Cellebrite report included “horizontal precision” values, which indicate a margin of error or degree of accuracy measured in meters for the reported locations. Tr. v. 3 at 8. Detective Vasquez exported the data in the Cellebrite report into a spreadsheet and file that displayed the phone's location information in a Google Earth program using the longitude and latitude. Police created maps of those coordinates that included the time, with a yellow pin indicating each precise location and a red circle indicating the margin of error. Police compiled the data in a video format to show the progression of Childs’ cell phone's location points sequentially between 3:00 and 4:00 a.m. on January 24. The reports and maps containing location data from Childs’ cell phone were admitted into evidence over Childs’ objections.

[29] Detective Vasquez had tested the location software by taking his own phone to various locations on two or three different occasions, keeping track of the time and place, and then using the Cellebrite software on his own phone. The reports from the extraction of Detective Vasquez’ phone were consistent with its known locations at specific times, including the route he took.

[30] On October 10, 2024, the jury found Childs guilty as charged. The court held a sentencing hearing on March 11, 2025. At the hearing, Childs presented witnesses who testified about Father's past abuse of Childs and others. Childs also presented testimony from Dr. James Henry, who holds a Ph.D. in developmental psychology and social work, and from Brandon Randall, a youth worker who had worked with Childs at the Juvenile Detention Center. Dr. Henry testified that he had evaluated Childs and reviewed police reports regarding Father's past incidents of domestic violence and reports from the Indiana Department of Child Services regarding reports of violence in Father's home. Dr. Henry diagnosed Childs with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) related to Father's past violence. Dr. Henry also opined that Childs has the capacity for rehabilitation. Randall testified that he had worked with Childs one-on-one in a leadership program at the detention center and opined that Childs has the capacity to “help lead and ․ educate others.” Tr. v. 7 at 100. However, Childs’ presentence investigation report disclosed that Childs had been written up for several conduct violations while in jail awaiting trial, including seven assaults.

[31] The trial court sentenced Childs to consecutive prison sentences of fifty-five years for each murder count and thirty years for the attempted murder count, for an aggregate sentence of 360 years. The court did not enter judgment of conviction on the misdemeanor handgun count. In reaching its sentence, the trial court considered as mitigators Childs’ lack of criminal history, the classes he took while in jail, and his youth, to which the court gave “great weight.” Id. at 122. It noted Childs’ trauma and PTSD but also noted that “plenty of other people have been the victims of child abuse and neglect” but have not committed murders. Id. at 121.

[32] In aggravation, the court considered Childs’ relationships to the victims and that the harm to the victims was significant, two of the victims were minors, some of the murders took place in a minor's presence, one of the victims was nine months pregnant, one victim was a viable unborn child, one victim was infirm, and the crimes were premeditated and “cold-blooded.” Id. at 123. The court also noted that Childs had committed three assaults while in jail after the entry of the guilty verdicts. The court determined that “the mitigators and the aggravators balance out,” and it imposed the advisory sentences for the murders and attempted murder. Id. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Issue One: Evidentiary Rulings

[33] Childs challenges certain evidentiary rulings on constitutional grounds and under the rules of evidence. Specifically, he asserts that the exclusion of some of his proffered evidence about the alleged inadequacy of the police investigation violated his due process right to present a defense and that the admission of evidence taken from his cell phone violated his right to confront the witnesses against him and Rule of Evidence 403. Generally, the trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the exclusion or admission of evidence. Ramirez v. State, 174 N.E.3d 181, 189 (Ind. 2021). To the extent such claims implicate constitutional issues, we review them de novo. Id.

[34] However, we need not address the merits of evidentiary challenges where we conclude that any error was harmless. See Cannon v. State, 99 N.E.3d 274, 278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. A non-constitutional error is harmless where “its probable impact, in light of all the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Ind. Appellate Rule 66(A). The basic premise of the harmless error rule is “that a conviction may stand when the error had no bearing on the outcome of the case.” Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 652 (Ind. 2018).

[35] Similarly, a criminal defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses is “subject to reasonable limitations placed at the discretion of the trial court,” and any violation of the right does not require reversal “if the State can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” Koenig v. State, 933 N.E.2d 1271, 1273 (Ind. 2010) (citations omitted); see also id. (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986)) (noting factors to be considered in the harmless error analysis include “the importance of the witness’[s] testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case”); Crossland v. State, 256 N.E.3d 517, 528-29 (Ind. 2025) (holding an alleged constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt).

[36] Here, the State presented ample evidence that Childs murdered six individuals and attempted to murder X.C. X.C. positively identified his brother Childs as the person who came down the basement stairs right after gunshots were fired upstairs where R.C., Elijah, Kiara, and Kiara's viable unborn child had just been shot to death and immediately before gunshots were fired in the basement where Father and Step-Mother were shot to death. X.C. testified that he saw Childs standing at the basement entrance holding the Draco firearm immediately after the murders and before chasing X.C. And X.C. testified that he saw Childs shoot him twice. Such positive eyewitness testimony alone was strong evidence of Childs’ guilt. See, e.g., C.S. v. State, 71 N.E.3d 848, 851 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (“We may, and ordinarily do, uphold findings of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt supported only by the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, even the victim's.”) (citing Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012)).

[37] Moreover, the testimony of Detective Vasquez that an analysis of Childs’ cell phone placed him at the scenes of the crimes was cumulative of X.C.’s testimony also placing Childs at the scenes of the crimes. See, e.g., Richardson v. State, 189 N.E.3d 629, 636 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (internal quotation and citation omitted) (“In general, the admission of evidence that is merely cumulative of other evidence amounts to harmless error as such admission does not affect a party's substantial rights.”). We further note that Childs had the opportunity to—and did—cross examine the State's witnesses about the adequacy of the State's investigation of the crimes. And, there was ample circumstantial evidence supporting X.C.’s testimony regarding Childs’ commission of the crimes, including the following: X.C. heard no one enter the Childs home or the dog barking prior to the shootings; there was no sign of forced entry into the home; and many of the casings, bullets, and bullet fragments found in and near the victims’ bodies matched the gun later found in Childs’ possession.

[38] Given the overwhelming evidence of Childs’ guilt, the State has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that any error in excluding evidence of others’ past disputes with the victims or admitting testimony about the location of Childs’ cell phone did not affect Childs’ substantial rights or contribute to the jury's verdict and was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue Two: Inappropriateness of Sentence

[39] Childs asks that we revise his sentence because it is inappropriate. Article 7, Sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution “authorize[ ] independent appellate review and revision of a sentence imposed by the trial court.” Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind.), clarified on reh'g 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). This appellate authority is implemented through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Id. As our Supreme Court recently explained,

Appellate Rule 7(B) serves “to leaven the outliers, rather than to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ sentence,” McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 554, 566 (Ind. 2018), allowing revision of a sentence if the court finds the trial court's decision to be inappropriate in consideration of the nature of the offense and the offender's character, Inman v. State, 4 N.E.3d 190, 203 (Ind. 2014) (quoting App. R. 7(B)). “Ultimately, our constitutional authority to review and revise sentences boils down to our collective sense of what is appropriate,” Taylor v. State, 86 N.E.3d 157, 165 (Ind. 2017) (cleaned up), an act that is reserved for “exceptional” cases, Gibson v. State, 43 N.E.3d 231, 241 (Ind. 2015). It is up to the defendant to “persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met th[e] inappropriateness standard of review.” Childress [v. State], 848 N.E.2d [1073,] 1080 [(Ind. 2006)]. The trial court's sentence is afforded considerable deference and will stand unless [overcome by] “compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant's character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

Cramer v. State, 240 N.E.3d 693, 698 (Ind. 2024).

[40] For Childs’ murder convictions, the sentencing range is between forty-five and sixty-five years of imprisonment, with an advisory sentence of fifty-five years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-3(a). For Childs’ conviction of attempted murder, a Level 1 felony, the sentencing range is between twenty and forty years, with an advisory sentence of thirty years. I.C. § 35-50-2-4(b). Childs received the advisory sentence for each of his convictions. “[T]he advisory sentence is the starting point the Legislature selected as appropriate for the crime committed.” Brown v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1, 4 (Ind. 2014). Nevertheless, Childs contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character.

[41] In reviewing a sentence under Rule 7(B), we take “a holistic approach.” Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 127 (Ind. 2024).

We assess a sentence in light of the whole picture before us. Allowing a strong showing on one prong to outweigh a weak showing on the other promotes the ideal of similar sentences for perpetrators committing the same acts who have the same backgrounds. We reiterate, however, that, to the extent the evidence on one prong militates against relief, a claim based on the other prong must be all the stronger to justify relief.

Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted).

[42] Here, Childs does not dispute that the nature of the offenses was “harrowing.” Appellant's Br. at 44. Indeed, his crimes were indisputably horrific; Childs murdered six people, including his little sister, his injured stepmother, and a nine-months-pregnant woman and her viable unborn child, without any apparent provocation. Childs then attempted to murder his young brother, who was offering Childs money and begging for his life.

[43] However, Childs contends that evidence of his character is strong enough to outweigh the horror of his crimes. “The ‘character of the offender’ portion of the Rule 7(B) standard refers to general sentencing considerations and relevant aggravating and mitigating factors ․ and permits a broader consideration of the defendant's character.” Woodcock v. State, 163 N.E.3d 863, 878 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (internal quotations and citations omitted), trans. denied. Childs points out that Father was abusive throughout Childs’ childhood and had threatened further abuse on the day of the murders. In addition, Childs was diagnosed with PTSD caused by his difficult childhood. “[A] juvenile offender's difficult upbringing ․ can serve to diminish the juvenile's culpability and weigh in favor of a lesser sentence.” Brown, 10 N.E.3d at 6.

[44] Most significantly for the purpose of determining Childs’ character, he was only seventeen years old at the time he committed the crimes. Both the United States Supreme Court and Indiana courts have recognized that “juveniles have diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform” and are, therefore, “less deserving of the most severe punishments.” State v. Stidham, 157 N.E.3d 1185, 1196 (Ind. 2020) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 471 (2012)). As the Indiana Supreme Court recently noted, Indiana courts often reduce a youth's sentence “because otherwise the juvenile offender would be in prison for the rest of their life, which is normally not appropriate given juveniles’ diminished culpability and capacity for rehabilitation.” Kelly v. State, 257 N.E.3d 782, 805 (Ind. 2025), petition for cert. filed, ––– U.S. –––– (U.S. Nov. 25, 2025) (No. 25-6230). Thus, for example, in James v. State, where a thirteen-year-old defendant committed one murder and was given a near maximum sentence, a panel of this Court reduced his sentence to the advisory level of fifty-five years. 178 N.E.3d 1236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. In doing so, we noted that his sentence should reflect his “extreme youth and the other mitigating circumstances” but should also “reflect the nature and circumstances of his offense” which was a violent and “senseless loss of a young life” caused by eight gun shots. Id. at 1245.

[45] Here, the vulnerability of the victims and the sheer number of murders and attempted murder and their severity were extreme. “[G]enerally, multiple victims justify the imposition of enhanced and consecutive sentences.” Sanchez v. State, 938 N.E.2d 720, 723 (Ind. 2010); see also Jones v. State, 250 N.E.3d 1062, 1090 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (citation modified) (“Whether the counts involve one or multiple victims is highly relevant to the decision to impose consecutive sentences if for no other reason than to preserve potential deterrence of subsequent offenses.”), trans. denied. Thus, while Childs’ difficult childhood, mental health issues, and youth may weigh against the imposition of maximum sentences for each criminal count, we agree with the trial court that it does not weigh against imposing the advisory sentence for each count. Cf. James, 178 N.E.3d at 1245. Further, we agree with the trial court that it is appropriate to run those sentences consecutively, thereby acknowledging the significance of the damage caused to each individual victim. See, e.g., Shields v. State, 248 N.E.3d 1246, 1277 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (citing Pittman v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1246, 1259 (Ind. 2008)), trans. denied. While such a sentence may impose, in effect, a lifetime of imprisonment upon Childs,² we cannot say that sentence is inappropriate given the multiple and heinous crimes involved. Therefore, we affirm it.

Conclusion

[46] To the extent the alleged evidentiary errors exist, they were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming admissible evidence of Childs’ guilt. And we cannot say that Childs’ sentence imposing consecutive, advisory-level terms of imprisonment is inappropriate considering the nature of the multiple violent offenses and Childs’ character. We affirm Childs’ convictions and sentence.

[47] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   T'ana King is Stepmother's child from another marriage but was considered to be one of the Childs siblings.

2.   We note that neither party has mentioned recently-enacted Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-17(n), which allows a person who was sentenced for a conviction when he was under eighteen years of age to file “an additional petition for sentence modification under this section without the consent of the prosecuting attorney if the person has served at least: ․ twenty (20) years of the person's sentence, if the person is serving a sentence for murder.” I.C. § 35-38-1-17(n)(2).

Bailey, Judge.

Tavitas, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.