David A. McDaniel, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] After David A. McDaniel pleaded guilty to four counts of Level 5 felony child exploitation, the Dearborn Circuit Court ordered him to serve an aggregate twelve years executed in the Department of Correction. McDaniel appeals his sentence and argues that it is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] The Indiana State Police received a “cyber tip” from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that McDaniel, an Indiana resident, had downloaded child pornography to Dropbox. The videos showed an adult male engaging in sex acts with a prepubescent boy who appeared younger than twelve years old. During their investigation, police officers found additional photographs and videos, some of which depicted children who were younger than ten years old. McDaniel admitted that he had possessed the child pornography and that he had saved additional files depicting child pornography to a memory stick, which he had destroyed. He also admitted to fondling two of his sons. Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 77-78, 80. However, his sons did not disclose any abuse when they were interviewed by law enforcement officers.

[4] On December 14, 2022, the State charged McDaniel with four counts of Level 5 felony child exploitation. McDaniel eventually agreed to plead guilty to those offenses. The plea agreement left sentencing to the trial court's discretion except that the parties agreed that the “[s]entences for Counts I and II shall run concurrent with each other[ ] and consecutive to Counts III and IV.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 126.

[5] McDaniel's first sentencing hearing was held in May 2024, and the trial court imposed an aggregate twelve-year sentence. Thereafter, McDaniel filed a motion to correct error and argued that the trial court “abused its sentencing discretion in weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors and imposing the most severe sentence possible under the circumstances.” Id. at 151. Specifically, McDaniel argued that the trial court failed to afford any mitigating weight to his guilty plea. Id. at 152. After holding a hearing on the motion, the trial court granted the motion to correct error and set the matter for resentencing.

[6] The trial court resentenced McDaniel on February 18, 2025. The court heard evidence and argument but also took judicial notice of the evidence presented at McDaniel's first sentencing hearing. McDaniel presented evidence of his alcohol and substance addictions and that he was a victim of sex abuse when he was a child. McDaniel's ex-wife testified that one of their sons has behavioral issues and his phone was destroyed because he was sending naked pictures of other children to his friends. Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 85-86. Another son engaged in violent behavior at daycare and was kicked out of that facility. Id. at 87.

[7] The court found the following aggravating circumstances: 1) the nature and circumstances of the offenses are “particularly egregious” and the “tender age of the victims in this case is significantly lower than the age ․ required to be charged for this offense”, 2) the uncharged acts of child molesting, and 3) the impact of McDaniel's crimes on his children. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, pp. 186-89. As mitigating circumstances, the court considered that McDaniel suffers from PTSD and substance use disorder, that McDaniel was a victim of sexual abuse, that he has expressed remorse, he has a family support system, he is gainfully employed, and that he pleaded guilty. Id. at 189-90. The court stated that McDaniel “did not receive a substantial benefit for pleading guilty so the Court will give significant weight to Defendant's plea of guilty.” Id. at 189. However, the trial court also found that the aggravating factors significantly outweighed the mitigating factors.

[8] The court then ordered McDaniel to serve six years on each count. The trial court ordered Counts 1 and 2 to be served concurrently and Counts 3 and 4 to be served concurrently. The court ordered the concurrent sentences in Counts 1 and 2 to be served consecutive to the concurrent terms ordered for Counts 3 and 4. In the aggregate, the court imposed a twelve-year executed sentence. The trial court also recommended purposeful incarceration and indicated that if McDaniel successfully completed a clinically appropriate substance abuse treatment program, the court would consider a sentence modification.

[9] McDaniel now appeals.

McDaniel's aggregate twelve-year sentence is not inappropriate.

[10] 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).

[11] 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).

[12] The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one to six years, with the advisory sentence of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6. McDaniel was ordered to serve the maximum term of six years for each count. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the court ordered the concurrent terms in Counts 1 and 2 to be served consecutive to the concurrent terms imposed for Counts 3 and 4, resulting in an aggregate twelve-year sentence.

[13] McDaniel concedes that “possession and dissemination of material depicting sexual abuse of children is an inherently heinous offense.” Appellant's Br. at 13. But he claims that “there was no evidence that the nature of [his] criminal conduct exceeded the statutory elements or the conduct proscribed by the legislature.” Id.

[14] But McDaniel admitted that he possessed more images or videos of child pornography than the videos that resulted in the charges in this case. And, as the trial court noted in its sentencing order,

this crime has a perpetual quality where victims live with the knowledge that their abuse remains accessible potentially forever. Additionally, possession fuels demand for an illegal and destructive industry. By downloading, storing, or sharing child pornography, individuals sustain a market that incentivizes further production. This creates a cycle of child exploitation where more children are abused. Thus, possessors of child pornography are complicit in ongoing and future harm, not just past acts.

Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 187; see also Brown v. State, 912 N.E.2d 881, 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (describing the repetitive victimization of children exploited by the child pornography industry), trans. denied.

[15] McDaniel does not present any compelling evidence that would lead us to conclude that his sentence is inappropriate when considering the nature of his offenses.

[16] Concerning his character, McDaniel argues that his history of childhood trauma, his substance abuse and mental health issues, his sincere expression of remorse, his gainful employment, and the support of his family establish that his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character. He also directs our attention to the testimony of his family members who expressed support for him and described his criminal offenses as out of character for him. Finally, McDaniel notes that he committed his offenses when he was under the stress of his marriage ending.

[17] Aside from his expression of remorse and decision to plead guilty, McDaniel does not present compelling evidence portraying his character in a positive light. Instead, he relies on a difficult childhood, stress in his adult life, and his substance abuse to attempt to mitigate his criminal behavior. And McDaniel admitted to both an investigating law enforcement officer and his ex-wife that he fondled his two youngest sons.

[18] For all of these reasons, McDaniel has not met his burden of persuading us that his twelve-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character. We therefore affirm the trial court's order imposing sentence in this case.

[19] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

May, J., and Felix, J., concur.