Jason Allen Messman, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Jason Allen Messman (“Messman”) appeals, following a guilty plea, the sentence imposed for his convictions for two counts of Level 4 felony child exploitation,¹ Level 5 felony possession of child pornography,² Level 6 felony identity deception,³ and Class A misdemeanor distribution of an obscene matter.⁴ Messman argues that: (1) his sentence is inappropriate; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed a $10,000 fine for his Class A misdemeanor conviction. First, we conclude that Messman has failed to show that his sentence is inappropriate, and we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court. Second, the State asserts, and we agree, that the trial court's imposition of the $10,000 fine was intended to be for Messman's Level 6 felony identity deception conviction and that the trial court made a clerical error when its sentencing order indicated that the fine was imposed for Messman's Class A misdemeanor conviction. Accordingly, we remand with instructions to the trial court to amend its sentencing order to correct the clerical error.

[2] We affirm and remand with instructions.

Issues

1. Whether Messman's sentence is inappropriate.

2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed a $10,000 fine for Messman's Class A misdemeanor conviction.

Facts

[3] In 2021, Messman began watching child pornography. Soon after, Messman also created a social media account (“the account”) and began trading child pornography online. Messman created and shared sexually-exploitative images of Victim (“Victim”) using the account. To create the images, Messman edited, photoshopped, and stitched multiple images together. Messman sourced the non-exploitative images from Victim's Mother's (“Victim's Mother”) social media page.⁵ Specifically, Messman sourced non-sexual images of Victim and her family from Victim's Mother's social media page and stitched those images together with child exploitative images to give the impression that Victim was in the sexually-exploitative images. Messman also stitched images of Victim's Mother's head into sexually-explicit images. Messman focused on images of Victim at a younger age.⁶ While impersonating Victim's Father (“Victim's Father”) online on the account, Messman roleplayed that he was sexually molesting his own daughter. Further, Messman used Victim's Father's real name on the account and used Victim's and Victim's Mother's real names in his online interactions and uploaded images.

[4] In February 2024, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children received a cyber tip that the account had uploaded over a dozen sexually-exploitative images of children. In April 2024, a detective with the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department (“the detective”) began investigating the account, and during that investigation, determined that the IP address used to access the account was located in Fishers, Indiana, which is where Messman lived.

[5] The detective viewed multiple images that Messman had uploaded to the account, including the three images relevant to this appeal. The first image (“the first image”) contained two images stitched together. The first portion of the first image depicts a prepubescent juvenile, around the age of four to six years old, wearing an orange shirt. The prepubescent juvenile has her eyes closed and is sleeping, and an adult male penis is placed against and partially inside the prepubescent juvenile's mouth. The second portion of the first image is a non-exploitative image of Victim and Victim's Father, who are both wearing bathing suits. Victim was around eleven or twelve years old in this image.

[6] The second image (“the second image”) is another stitched image containing two portions. The first portion of the second image is similar to the first portion of the first image, except that the adult male penis is near the prepubescent child's mouth. The second portion of the second image is a picture of Victim, who is wearing a bathing suit.

[7] The third image (“the third image”) also has two portions. The first portion of the third image contains the words “Like daughter” and Victim's name along with an image of a prepubescent girl, nude from the waist down, lying on a couch. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 16). The second portion of the third image contains the words “Like mother” and Victim's Mother's name along with an image of a fully nude woman with Victim's Mother's face. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 16).

[8] The detective also read through the account's chat history with other users. In those messages, Messman impersonated Victim's Father and told other users that he was sexually abusing Victim. Specifically, Messman sent, among many others, the following messages: (1) “I really wanted to f*** my daughter around 8. There's no way she couldn't feel my [semen] on her[;]” and (2) “[l]et me get some pics posted here with me having fun with my sleeping girl[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 15). Messman also sent a message explaining that “the secret” was to give children alcohol so that they “pass out” and “[t]hen the fun begins[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 15).

[9] The detective determined that Messman was impersonating Victim's Father online and obtained a search warrant for Messman's home. After executing the search warrant, the detective obtained Messman's laptop and thumb drive, which contained more child pornography. Specifically, the thumb drive contained an approximately one-and-one-half-minute video (“the video”) depicting “a nude [six to eight]-year-old female child lying on a couch. The words, F*** Me, appear along with an arrow pointed at the child's genitals. The child's breasts and genitals are visible, and an adult male repeatedly penetrates the child's vagina with his penis.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 17). The detective arrested Messman.

[10] In April 2024, the State charged Messman with: (1) ten counts of Level 4 felony child exploitation; (2) ten counts of Level 5 felony possession of child pornography; (3) Level 6 felony identity deception; and (4) Class A misdemeanor distribution of an obscene matter. In May 2025, Messman pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to two counts of Level 4 felony child exploitation, Level 5 felony possession of child pornography, Level 6 felony identity deception, and Class A misdemeanor distribution of an obscene matter. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges. The plea agreement further provided, in part, that: (1) Messman's sentence would be open to argument; and (2) if, Messman's sentence included community corrections or probation, the trial court should order that Messman comply with the Indiana special conditions for adult sex offenders listed in the plea agreement. The trial court ordered the probation department to prepare a presentence investigation report (“the PSI”).

[11] At Messman's July 2025 guilty plea and sentencing hearing, the trial court accepted the plea agreement. The State established a thorough factual basis, during which it recited the facts as set forth above. Specifically, the State presented facts connecting the first image and the second image to the Level 4 felony child exploitation charges, the video to the Level 5 felony possession of child pornography charge, Messman's impersonation of Victim's Father to the Level 6 felony identity deception charge, and the third image to the Class A misdemeanor distribution of an obscene matter charge. Messman agreed with the factual basis and pleaded guilty pursuant to the plea agreement.

[12] During Messman's PSI interview, he explained that he had committed these offenses because of his pornography addiction and because he had “thought no one would ever find it. Things escalated, and it made it interesting.” (App. Vol. 2 at 25). Messman described the attention that he would get after uploading images as “exciting” and “a strange way to feel accepted.” (App. Vol. 2 at 25). Messman also disclosed that he had been creating sexually-exploitative images for approximately two years.

[13] Also during the hearing, a clinical psychologist (“the psychologist”) testified that he was Messman's therapist and that he had conducted a psychosexual assessment of Messman. The psychologist explained that Messman had been sexually abused as a child. The psychologist also testified that Messman had been attending individual therapy and group therapy every week since his arrest for these offenses. The psychologist further testified that he believed that Messman had a low to moderate risk of reoffending.

[14] Victim's Father gave a victim impact statement, during which he explained that he had “put everything that [he] ha[d]” to provide his family with the best life possible. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 87). Victim's Father explained that Messman had twisted and distorted that work “in the worst imaginable way” and that Messman's acts were “the epitome of evil.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 87). Victim's Mother submitted a written victim impact statement, in which she described Messman's acts as “the most invasive, sickening experiences of [her family's] lives.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 90). Victim's Mother wrote that she could not “begin to describe the shock, humiliation, and anger” that she felt after Victim's Father had been investigated for “something so vile and unimaginable[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 90). Victim's Mother felt “shattered” and “sick to [her] core” when the police officers had shown her the images that Messman had shared online. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 90). Further, Victim's Mother explained that she felt sick knowing that the images that Messman had uploaded online still existed somewhere and described the entire experience as a “trauma that will never go away.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 91).

[15] Victim also gave a victim impact statement, during which she told the trial court that she “no longer fe[lt] comfortable going out in public alone[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 91-92). Victim explained that she is scared of being alone, going anywhere alone, and is no longer comfortable with her images being posted to social media websites. Victim further explained that her fear persists even when she is alone in her own home and that she is “constantly on edge” and feels uneasy. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 92).

[16] Messman gave a statement of allocution and expressed remorse for his actions. Specifically, he apologized to Victim and her family, his family, and the community for his actions. Messman told the trial court that, after individual and group therapy, he realized that he had a life-long addiction to pornography and that he was “trying to take steps to ensure [that] [he] never repeat[ed] this.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 95).

[17] The trial court noted the following mitigators: (1) Messman's guilty plea; (2) Messman's lack of criminal history and lack of no contact order violations; and (3) Messman's remorse. When the State asked the trial court for the nature and circumstances of the offense aggravator, the trial court agreed with the State that this aggravator was present.

[18] For Messman's two Level 4 felony child exploitation convictions, the trial court sentenced him to six (6) years, with four (4) years executed at the Department of Correction (“the DOC”) and two (2) years in community corrections. For his Level 5 felony possession of child pornography conviction, the trial court sentenced Messman to three (3) years, with one (1) year executed at the DOC and two (2) years in community corrections. For Messman's Level 6 felony identity deception conviction, the trial court sentenced him to two-and-one-half (21/212) years, fully suspended to probation. Finally, for his Class A misdemeanor distribution of an obscene matter conviction, the trial court sentenced Messman to one (1) year, fully suspended to probation. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively to one another for an aggregate sentence of eighteen-and-one-half (181/212) years, with nine (9) years executed at the DOC, six (6) years in community corrections, and three-and-one-half (31/212) years suspended to probation.

[19] The trial court stated that it was imposing a $10,000 fine on one count of the Level 4 felony child exploitation conviction and on the Level 6 felony identity deception conviction. In its initial written sentencing order, the trial court ordered Messman to pay a $10,000 fine for one of his Level 4 felony child exploitation convictions, his Level 6 felony identity deception conviction, and his Class A misdemeanor distribution of an obscene matter conviction. The trial court amended its sentencing order in August 2025. In its amended order, the trial court imposed a $10,000 fine for one of the Level 4 felony child exploitation convictions, but it again imposed a $10,000 fine for Messman's Class A misdemeanor distribution of an obscene matter conviction.

[20] Messman now appeals.

Decision

[21] Messman argues that: (1) his sentence is inappropriate; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed a $10,000 fine for his Class A misdemeanor conviction. We address each of his arguments in turn.

1. Inappropriate Sentence

[22] Messman first argues that his sentence is inappropriate. He specifically asks our Court to revise his sentence by either fully suspending the executed portion of his sentence to probation or by ordering his sentences to be served concurrently.

[23] We may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). The defendant has the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). The principal role of a Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived correct result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on “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.” Id. at 1224. “Appellate Rule 7(B) analysis is not to determine whether another sentence is more appropriate but rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), reh'g denied.

[24] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge that the advisory sentence “is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. Here, Messman pleaded guilty to two counts of Level 4 felony child exploitation, Level 5 felony possession of child pornography, Level 6 felony identity deception, and Class A misdemeanor distribution of an obscene matter. A person who commits a Level 4 felony “shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two (2) and twelve (12) years, with the advisory sentence being six (6) years.” See I.C. § 35-50-2-5.5. A person who commits a Level 5 felony “shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between one (1) and six (6) years, with the advisory sentence being three (3) years.” I.C. § 35-50-2-6(b). A person who commits a Level 6 felony “shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between six (6) months and two and one-half (21/212) years, with the advisory sentence being one (1) year.” I.C. § 35-50-2-7(b). A person who commits a Class A misdemeanor “shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than one (1) year[.]” I.C. § 35-50-3-2.

[25] The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of six (6) years, with four (4) years executed at the DOC and two (2) years in community corrections for Messman's Level 4 felony convictions; three (3) years, with one (1) year executed at the DOC and two (2) years in community corrections for his Level 5 felony conviction; two-and-one-half (21/212) years, fully suspended to probation for his Level 6 felony conviction; and one (1) year, fully suspended to probation for his Class A misdemeanor conviction. The trial court ordered an aggregate sentence of eighteen-and-one-half (181/212) years, with nine (9) years executed at the DOC, six (6) years in community corrections, and three-and-one-half (31/212) years suspended to probation. This is well below the statutory maximum of thirty-three-and-one-half years.

[26] We first turn to the nature of Messman's offense. “The nature of the offense is found in the details and circumstances surrounding the offense and the defendant's participation.” Howard v. State, 266 N.E.3d 304, 324 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (cleaned up). Here, we note that Messman's actions were particularly appalling. Messman sourced photos of Victim, Victim's Mother, and Victim's Father from Victim's Mother's social media page. Then, Messman, while impersonating Victim's Father, portrayed to others that he was molesting Victim. Further, Messman uploaded two images in which one portion of the image contained child exploitative material and the other portion of the image contained a photo that Messman had taken from Victim's Mother's social media page. The third image uploaded by Messman contained a partially-nude image of a child and a fully-nude image of a woman with an image of Victim's Mother's head stitched onto the body. The third image also included Victim's and Victim's Mother's names. The messages that Messman sent to other users were also especially concerning. Again, while impersonating Victim's Father, Messman roleplayed that he was sexually molesting his own daughter. Further, Messman possessed the video of child pornography on his thumb drive. The nature of Messman's offenses shocks the conscience and in no way merits a downward revision of his sentence.

[27] Turning to Messman's character, we first note that “[a] defendant's life and conduct are illustrative of his or her character.” Morris v. State, 114 N.E.3d 531, 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. Although Messman has no prior criminal history, he disclosed that he had been uploading sexually exploitative images for approximately two years. We acknowledge that Messman has started therapy, but we note that he only did so after being charged with these offenses. Further, Messman, after pleading guilty, received the significant benefit of a dismissal of seventeen felony charges.

[28] Messman has not persuaded this Court that his sentence is inappropriate. Therefore, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.⁷

2. Imposition of Fine

[29] Messman also argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed a fine for his Class A misdemeanor conviction that was higher than the statutory maximum. Specifically, Messman notes that the trial court, in its written sentencing order, imposed a $10,000 fine for his Class A misdemeanor distribution of an obscene matter conviction. Messman argues that the statutory maximum for a fine for a Class A misdemeanor is $5,000 and that we should remand the case to the trial court with instructions to amend its sentencing order to comply with the statutory maximum of $5,000. The State responds that remand is necessary but argues that the trial court's unambiguous statements at sentencing show that the trial court's intent was to impose a $10,000 fine for one of Messman's Level 4 felony convictions and for his Level 6 felony conviction and that the trial court's written sentencing order contains a clerical error when it attributed the $10,000 fine to Messman's Class A misdemeanor conviction. Thus, the State contends that, on remand, the trial court should amend its sentencing order to be consistent with its unambiguous statement at sentencing. We agree with the State.

[30] When oral and written sentencing statements conflict, we examine them together to discern the intent of the sentencing court. Vaughn v. State, 13 N.E.3d 873, 890 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. We may remand the case for correction of clerical errors if the trial court's intent is unambiguous. Id.

[31] Here, the trial court's statements at sentencing were unambiguous. During Messman's sentencing hearing, the trial court expressed its intent to impose a $10,000 fine for one of Messman's Level 4 felony convictions and for Messman's Level 6 felony conviction, but this intent was not reflected in either its original or amended sentencing orders. Consequently, the trial court's imposition of the $10,000 fine for Messman's Class A misdemeanor conviction appears to be a clerical error that the trial court must correct on remand. We remand with instructions for the trial court to correct its clerical error. Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-4.

2.   Id.

3.   I.C. § 35-43-5-3.5.

4.   I.C. § 35-49-3-1.

5.   Messman had previously worked with Victim's Mother and was friends with Victim's Mother on a social media website.

6.   At the time of sentencing, Victim was over twenty years old.

7.   Messman recognizes that the trial court found mitigating circumstances, but he argues that the trial court did not properly weigh the mitigating circumstances. However, “[a] sentencing court cannot abuse its discretion by failing to properly weigh aggravating and mitigating factors.” Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 490. Thus, his arguments challenging the trial court's weighing of the mitigating circumstances fails. Messman also lists several mitigating circumstances under Indiana Code § 35-38.1-7.1(b) that he proffered to the trial court during his sentencing hearing but the trial court declined to find them as mitigators. A claim that the trial court failed to find a mitigating circumstance requires a defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record. Messman has failed to meet that burden. Therefore, we reject his argument. See Pennington v. State, 821 N.E.2d 899, 905 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (providing that merely stating a trial court overlooked proposed mitigating circumstances “does not rise to the level of proof needed to show that the proposed mitigating circumstance is both significant and clearly supported in the record.”).

Pyle, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.