Charles William South, Jr., Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary and Issue

[1] Between November 2023 and June 2024, then fifty-seven-year-old Charles William South, Jr., manipulated, preyed upon, and repeatedly sexually abused his thirteen-year-old daughter's best friend of the same age (the “Victim”). South turned himself in to a local police station and admitted to what he had done, only after South's adult daughter discovered and then told Victim's parents about sexually explicit text messages between South and Victim that had been found on South's cell phone. South agreed to plead guilty to Level 3 felony child molesting. And the trial court accepted the guilty plea and sentenced South to sixteen years—the maximum sentence allowed for the crime. South appeals, raising the sole issue of whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character. Concluding that his sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Although the guilty plea hearing and subsequent sentencing hearing transcripts reveal a small amount about the nature of South's offense, a more detailed version exists in the probable cause affidavit. South's presentence investigation report incorporates the probable cause affidavit by directing the reader to the affidavit for the official version of events surrounding his crime. See Appellant's Appendix, Volume 2 at 195. Therefore, we look to the affidavit for details of his offense.

[3] When the events leading to this appeal occurred, South lived in a house in New Castle with his wife, his adult daughter (“Adult Daughter”), and his thirteen-year-old younger daughter (“Younger Daughter”). Victim and Younger Daughter were best friends. On various occasions, Victim slept over at Younger Daughter's house. Fifty-seven-year-old South had known thirteen-year-old Victim for about one year, the same amount of time that Victim and Younger Daughter had been friends.

[4] Around 3:30 p.m. on June 24, 2024, Victim asked and received permission from her mother to visit Younger Daughter's house. About an hour later, Adult Daughter brought Victim back to Victim's home, telling Victim's mother and stepfather (collectively, “Parents”) that she believed South had been sexually abusing Victim. Adult Daughter had discovered on South's cell phone text messages he had exchanged with Victim regarding “sexual encounters.” Id. at 25. After Adult Daughter had left the home, Parents tried to console Victim, but she walked out, telling Parents she was going to a friend's house and that she did not want to speak with law enforcement officers because she did not want to “get [South] in trouble.” Id. at 26.

[5] Victim's stepfather called 9-1-1, telling the operator that Victim had been sexually assaulted for an “unknown length of time by a [fifty-seven-year-old] male,” and Sergeant Zackariah Medford with the New Castle Police Department responded to the scene. Id. at 30. While the sergeant spoke with Parents, an assisting law enforcement officer found Victim at a nearby elementary school, and that officer alerted Sergeant Medford to Victim's location. When the sergeant encountered Victim, she appeared upset and indicated that she did not want to speak with him or any other member of law enforcement. But she did agree to return to her home. As the sergeant continued to gather information from Parents, he learned from dispatch that South was on his way to the police department to speak with officers about the “incident.” Id. at 26.

[6] Two New Castle Police Department detectives conducted South's interview after first advising South of his Miranda rights. South agreed to speak to the detectives, and he admitted he had engaged in sexual misconduct with Victim at least three times. South told the detectives that he had known Victim for approximately one year, and he acknowledged that he had known that Victim was thirteen years old.

[7] South then told the detectives that the “first time anything happened between him and [Victim]” was sometime in the fall of 2023, when she walked in on him urinating in his bathroom. Id. at 31. He claimed that “after that happened, they became closer ․ and [she] would always try to touch him.” Id. The next time he recalled something sexual occurring between him and Victim was in late December 2023. Victim had slept over at Younger Daughter's house, and South was sleeping on the couch “due to working opposite shifts with his wife so as not to disturb her.” Id. South told the detectives that he thought he was “dreaming [ ] when he woke up” to find Victim performing oral sex on him. Id. And, South added, he “was already ejaculating when he realized he was not actually dreaming.” Id.

[8] On another occasion, as South recounted, South was giving Victim a ride home after Victim had spent the night at Younger Daughter's house when, as South told the detectives, Victim “began touching and rubbing on him.” Id. South then pulled into a nearby park and “began groping [Victim's] breasts and vagina both outside of [her] clothing and underneath [her] clothing.” Id. He then had vaginal intercourse with Victim in his truck before driving her home. On yet another occasion, when South was transporting Victim home from his house, he stopped at the same park and had Victim perform oral sex on him.

[9] South also admitted to the detectives that Victim had texted him pictures of her vagina and that he had twice sent pictures of his penis to Victim. He showed the detectives messages Victim had texted to his cell phone, telling the detectives that he had erased other messages and pictures two days prior, “when his family found out and confronted him about his relationship” with Victim. Id.

[10] South was arrested, and on June 27, 2024, the State charged South with two counts of Level 1 felony child molesting as Counts I and II. On July 1, the court issued a protective order, prohibiting South from having contact with Victim or her family. On November 3, South was released on bond.

[11] Less than five months later, on March 18, 2025, the State filed a petition to revoke South's bail. The day before, South had been found with Victim in the garage of a rental house that he owned. Law enforcement officers who arrived to investigate heard two voices coming from the garage. But when the officers spoke with South, South claimed to be alone, telling the officers he was organizing the garage in preparation for a move. Upon further investigation, however, and after gaining access to the garage, the officers found Victim hiding near a couch. She refused to cooperate with the officers and tried to “break her cell phone on the concrete.” Id. at 86. Officers recovered from the scene a pair of pink girls’ underwear found on the couch; two vibrators; an open Trojan brand condom wrapper; and two used condoms found nearby on the floor.

[12] Victim and her mother were later interviewed at the police station about the incident. Victim did not disclose much information, and she “appeared to be attempting to keep South out of trouble.” Id. at 87. South was arrested and transported to jail. On March 20, 2025, the trial court revoked South's bond.

[13] On September 11, 2025, South entered into a plea agreement with the State. He agreed to plead guilty to Level 3 felony child molesting, as a lesser-included offense of the Level 1 felony child molesting count that had been charged as Count I. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining Level 1 felony child molesting count (charged as Count II). The parties agreed that the sentence would be left open to the trial court's discretion and that South would be required to register as a sex offender for life.

[14] At the guilty plea hearing held that same day, and after a colloquy with South, the trial court found that South's plea had been freely and voluntarily made. South also provided a factual basis for his offense. The court took the plea agreement under advisement and ordered the probation department to prepare a presentence investigation report (“the PSI”).¹

[15] The PSI revealed that South has a criminal history and that his contact with the courts and law enforcement began in 1985. In 1986, he was convicted in Florida of felony grand theft and criminal mischief and received a three-year sentence, fully suspended to probation. In March 2025, while on bond for the instant offense, he was charged with Level 4 felony sexual misconduct with a minor, Class A misdemeanor false informing, and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy after being discovered in the garage with Victim.² The PSI also revealed that South smokes marijuana daily.

[16] At the October 2, 2025 sentencing hearing, the State presented victim impact statements from Victim's family members. Family members told the trial court that South had left Victim with “mental and emotional scars”; Victim had been “subjected to sexual abuse by someone who should never have had the power to harm her”; and Victim “has carried a weight that no child should ever have to bear.” Transcript of Evidence, Volume 2 at 16, 20. Family members added that as a direct result of the abuse, Victim battles “anxiety, depression and emotional distress[.] Every[-]day situations can trigger painful memories and [Victim's] ability to build healthy relationships ․ has been severely impacted․ [T]he damage inflicted upon her is lifelong.” Id. at 20.

[17] Another family member told the court that South “chose to exploit [Victim's] trust for his own selfish and sick purposes.” Id. at 21. And South's abuse of Victim was “calculated [and a] deliberate grooming of a child who should have been protected. He did not just steal her innocence; he shattered her ability to feel safe in the world.” Id. Victim now “questions whether she can trust any adult[.]” Id. The family member stated that South had “inflicted trauma and pain that cannot be undone” and that Victim “has become detached, unaffiliated, and socially disconnected from the real world.” Id. at 21-22

[18] Her family also informed the court that Victim had been “bullied and persecuted by her peers” for what South had done to her; she had to change schools to avoid her bullies and victim-shaming; her grades had fallen; and she had difficulty concentrating. Id. at 22. And Victim was placed in an inpatient mental health facility “to help her cope with the unbearable pain she had endured.” Id. at 25.

[19] In his allocution statement, South expressed remorse for his abuse of Victim and the impact his abuse had on Victim's family. Five individuals wrote letters of support to the trial court on South's behalf.

[20] The trial court found as aggravating circumstances that: (1) the harm Victim sustained was significantly greater than the elements necessary to prove the commission of the offense; (2) South had violated the no-contact order and committed a new offense while released on bond; and (3) he violated a position of trust over Victim. The court determined that South's overall risk assessment to reoffend was high.³ The trial court also determined that South's decision to accept responsibility for his actions and plead guilty was tempered by his pleading guilty to Level 3 felony child molesting and avoiding a harsher sentence. The advisory sentence for Level 3 felony child molesting is nine years. Level 1 felony child molesting has an advisory sentence of thirty years.

[21] The trial court found a single mitigating circumstance, that there was “a period of time”—from 1986 to 2024—when South had no criminal offenses. Id. at 34. However, the court did not consider as mitigating circumstances either South's claim that incarceration would be an undue hardship for his family or his expression of remorse.

[22] Ultimately, the trial court determined that South was one of the “worst of the worst” offenders and sentenced him to sixteen years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). Id. at 37. South now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[23] South contends that his sixteen-year sentence is inappropriate in light of his character, “even considering the nature of his offense.” Brief of the Appellant at 6. He asks this Court to revise his sentence to a term below the sixteen-year maximum sentence for a Level 3 felony that the trial court imposed.

[24] Article 7, section 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorizes the Court to review sentences. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) implements this authority, stating that the Court may revise a sentence “if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Although Rule 7(B) requires us to consider both of these factors, the appellant is not required to prove that each of them independently renders his sentence inappropriate. Turkette v. State, 151 N.E.3d 782, 786 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied. Rather, they are separate inquiries that we ultimately balance to determine whether a sentence is inappropriate. Id.; see also Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 126 (Ind. 2024) (confirming that while reviewing courts must consider both factors, defendant need not necessarily prove sentence is inappropriate on both counts).

[25] Our determination of whether a sentence is inappropriate “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). Sentence modification under Rule 7(B) is reserved for rare and exceptional cases. Wilmsen v. State, 181 N.E.3d 469, 472 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (quoting Livingston v. State, 113 N.E.3d 611, 612 (Ind. 2018)).

[26] Our Supreme Court has long said that sentencing is “ ‘principally a discretionary function in which the trial court's judgment should receive considerable deference.’ ” Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 122 (quoting Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222). This deference prevails 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).’ ” Littlefield v. State, 215 N.E.3d 1081, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015)), trans. denied.

[27] “We may look at any factors appearing in the record when assessing the nature of the offense and character of the offender.” Zamilpa v. State, 229 N.E.3d 1079, 1088 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). The defendant bears the burden of persuading the appellate court that his sentence is inappropriate. Reynolds v. State, 142 N.E.3d 928, 944 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied.

[28] Our analysis of the nature of the offense begins with the advisory sentence, as it is the starting point selected by the legislature as an appropriate sentence for the crime. Reis v. State, 88 N.E.3d 1099, 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). A person who commits a Level 3 felony “shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between three (3) and sixteen (16) years, with the advisory sentence being nine (9) years.” Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5(b) (2014). Here, South pleaded guilty to Level 3 felony child molesting, and the trial court sentenced him to sixteen years executed at the DOC, the maximum sentence for a Level 3 felony.

A. Nature of the Offense

[29] Not surprisingly, South has not offered an argument regarding the nature of his offense, acknowledging that the offense was “disturbing.” Appellant's Br. at 7. Nevertheless, the nature of the offense does not support revision of South's sentence. Fifty-seven-year-old South preyed upon, manipulated, and repeatedly sexually abused thirteen-year-old Victim, Younger Daughter's best friend. He had vaginal intercourse with Victim in his truck in a public park, had her perform oral sex on him, sent her lewd pictures of his penis, and had her send him pictures of her vagina. Victim did not want to speak with law enforcement officers about the incidents and attempted to break her cell phone because she did not want South to be implicated. As a result of the abuse, Victim was subjected to bullying and victim-shaming by her peers and had to change schools. She was placed in an inpatient mental health facility to help her cope with the abuse she had endured. And she bears mental and emotional scars that, as one family member told the trial court, will “follow her through her [childhood] to her [adulthood].” Tr., Vol. 2 at 20. South's sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense.

B. Character of the Offender

[30] Neither does South's character render his sentence inappropriate. South argues that he “led a law-abiding life for 40 years,” having last been convicted of a crime in 1986 when he was eighteen years old; voluntarily admitted to committing the instant offense and accepted responsibility for his actions, thus saving Victim the “expense and the anxiety” of a trial; “expressed sincere remorse” to Victim's family; and maintained stable employment, served as the primary “breadwinner” for his family, and had “strong ties to his family and in the community[.]” Appellant's Br. at 7. We are unpersuaded that his character warrants a reduction of his sentence.

[31] While we acknowledge that South has just one felony conviction from decades ago, the conviction was for grand theft, and we note that “[e]ven a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendant's character.” Prince v. State, 148 N.E.3d 1171, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (citing Moss v. State, 13 N.E.3d 440, 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied). And although South turned himself in to the police and admitted what he had done to Victim, he did so only after the incriminating text messages were found on his cell phone and Victim's parents were alerted to the abuse. And when he spoke with the detectives, he blamed Victim for initiating his sexual misconduct, telling the detectives that Victim “would always try to touch him”; that Victim initiated fellatio on South; and that he pulled into the park to have sex with Victim because she was “touching and rubbing on him[.]” Appellant's App., Vol. 2 at 31.

[32] As for pleading guilty and sparing Victim the “expense and anxiety” of a trial, South benefited greatly from the trial court's acceptance of his guilty plea to Level 3 felony child molesting. Appellant's Br. at 7. Had South been convicted of Level 1 felony child molesting, he would have faced a maximum sentence of fifty years. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4 (2023) (sentencing range for Level 1 felony child molesting charged under Indiana Code section 35-42-4-3(a)(1), as was South, is twenty to fifty years, with advisory term being thirty years). And a “guilty plea may not be significantly mitigating when ․ the defendant receives a substantial benefit in return for the plea.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218, 221 (Ind. 2007).

[33] Furthermore, South's expression of remorse does not place his character in a good light, as it is superseded by what he did after he was released on bond. South violated a no-contact order between him and Victim and was caught with Victim in a garage with used condoms and vibrators. Victim's underwear was found on the couch, and one of the responding officers noted that based on his “training and experience[,]” the officers’ arrival “interrupted sexual misconduct between South and Victim[.]” Appellant's App., Vol. 2 at 88. Indeed, the trial court gave less weight to South's remorse because, as the court stated: “I turn back to the fact that a person that is so remorseful for their actions[,] I would not think when they are released on bond that they would have another situation involving the very same victim and being arrested on a very similar charge.” Tr., Vol. 2 at 35.

[34] Finally, South argues that his gainful employment, his family's reliance on him for financial support, and his ties to his family and his community establish that his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character. He directs our attention to the five letters of support submitted by members of his family and friends, describing him as a good person who made a mistake. We are unpersuaded and unable to find any virtuous traits on South's part. To the contrary, South's character demonstrates a blatant disregard for the law and a strong indication that he poses a continuing danger to Victim. This is evidenced by the fact that while on pretrial release, South violated a no-contact order and was caught by the police in a garage with Victim. Her underwear had been removed, and sex toys and used condoms were found nearby. Based on the foregoing, we decline to revise South's sentence in light of his character.

Conclusion

[35] In sum, South has not met his burden to establish that the sixteen-year sentence imposed by the trial court for the Level 3 felony child molesting conviction is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense or his character. We therefore affirm South's sentence.

[36] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Nothing in the plea agreement limited the trial court to considering only the facts presented in that document. As a result, we may also consider the statements in the probable cause affidavit. See Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134, 1145 (Ind. 2013) (unless parties bargain in plea agreements for language excluding specific circumstances of an offense from trial court consideration, “it is not necessary for a trial court to turn a blind eye to the facts of the incident that brought the defendant before them”).

2.   South was charged with the three offenses under cause number 33C02-2507-F4-13, and we take judicial notice of the pleadings and orders contained in the trial court's record under that cause number, as found in the Odyssey case management system. See Ind. Evidence Rule 201(a)(2)(C) (providing that a court may judicially notice the existence of records of a court of this state). South pleaded guilty to Level 4 felony sexual misconduct with a minor and, on October 23, 2025, was sentenced to six years executed in the DOC, ordered served consecutively to the sixteen-year sentence imposed in the cause leading to this appeal.

3.   Due to the nature of the instant offense, an override was completed on the Indiana Risk Assessment tool, and South was re-categorized from having a low-to-moderate risk to reoffend to having a high risk to reoffend.

Robb, Senior Judge.

Weissmann, J., and Scheele, J., concur.