Dylan Iceberg, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Dylan Iceberg appeals his fifteen-year aggregate sentence following his conviction of two counts of Level 4 felony sexual misconduct with a minor.¹ Iceberg raises one issue for our review: whether his sentence is inappropriate given the nature of his offenses and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2024, B.B. was fourteen years old and her aunt, K.H., was thirteen years old. B.B. routinely spent weekends at K.H.’s house with K.H.’s mother and B.B.’s grandfather/K.H.’s father in Cross Plains, Indiana. On May 11, 2024, B.B. and K.H. left K.H.’s house to go on a walk. They went to a neighbor's house and spent time with C.,² a seventeen-year-old acquaintance, and his younger siblings. At some point, Iceberg, who was twenty-six years old at the time, and his father, Rick Iceberg (“Rick”), arrived at C.’s house. Iceberg brought alcohol and marijuana, and he gave some of the alcohol and marijuana to B.B. and K.H. Eventually, C.’s grandmother told C.’s guests to leave, and Iceberg drove K.H., B.B., and Rick to a church parking lot.

[3] At the church parking lot, the four continued talking and drinking. Iceberg asked B.B. how old she was, and B.B. told him she was fourteen. The conversation turned to a discussion of where Iceberg lived, and Iceberg said, “I'll show you where I live and I'll, I'll bring you back.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 109.) After driving for about ten minutes, Iceberg turned down a long driveway into a wooded area. He dropped Rick off at the house located at the end of the driveway, and B.B. moved to the front passenger seat. Iceberg then drove deeper into the woods. When Iceberg parked the car, he and B.B. started kissing. Iceberg began taking off his clothes, and he took B.B.’s hand and placed it over his boxers on his penis. Iceberg subsequently removed his penis from his boxers and B.B. performed oral sex on him. During this time, K.H. “was just staring and then she started having a panic attack.” (Id. at 122-23.) K.H. got out of the vehicle and ran into the woods. B.B. ran after K.H. and caught up with her. After K.H. “calmed down,” (id. at 123), they returned to Iceberg's vehicle. B.B. and K.H. asked Iceberg to take them back to K.H.’s house, but Iceberg “just ignored” their requests. (Id. at 124.)

[4] B.B., K.H., and Iceberg fell asleep in the back of Iceberg's vehicle. B.B. woke up to Iceberg “grinding on” her. (Id. at 132.) Iceberg took off B.B.’s clothes and inserted his fingers and penis into her vagina. Afterward, Iceberg drove B.B. and K.H. back to Cross Plains. He dropped them off in the parking lot of the Dollar General Store and told them not to disclose what happened because Iceberg “would get in trouble.” (Id. at 138.) B.B. and K.H. walked to K.H.’s house. B.B. went to the hospital, and a nurse performed a sexual assault examination on her. The examination revealed the presence of Iceberg's DNA on her underwear.

[5] The State charged Iceberg with two counts of Level 4 felony sexual misconduct with a minor. The trial court held a three-day jury trial beginning on July 15, 2025. The jury found Iceberg guilty as charged, and the trial court held Iceberg's sentencing hearing on August 7, 2025. At the sentencing hearing, the State explained that it “would concede” the crimes constituted a single episode of criminal conduct. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 181.) The State noted that sexual misconduct with a minor was “not considered statutorily ․ [a] crime of violence” and the “maximum possible sentence that we're ․ dealing with” was fifteen years. (Id. at 182.)

[6] The trial court found three aggravating factors and listed them in a written sentencing order:

a. The Defendant has a juvenile history, [has] an adult criminal history, and was on probation at the time of the commission of these offenses. The Court finds that this is a substantial aggravating factor of significant weight.

b. The Defendant committed these offenses in the physical presence of a 13-year-old child. The 13-year-old child had a panic attack as a result of observing the Defendant engaging in other sexual conduct with her 14-year-old relative. During the sexual intercourse, the younger child was literally lying next to the Defendant and victim during the intercourse, but may not have awakened due to being extremely intoxicated. The Court finds that this is a substantial aggravating factor of significant weight.

c. The Defendant either provided alcohol and marijuana to the young girls or, at the very least, took advantage of the girls being intoxicated, which the Court finds placed the girls in an even more precarious circumstance, and said circumstance—intoxication—was used by the Defendant to facilitate the commission of the offenses. The Court finds that said aggravating factor is a substantial aggravating factor of significant weight.

(App. Vol. 3 at 132-33.) The trial court did not find any mitigating factors. The trial court sentenced Iceberg to a term of eight years on the count of sexual misconduct with a minor involving intercourse and seven years with respect to the count of sexual misconduct with a minor involving oral sex. The trial court ordered Iceberg to serve the sentences consecutively for an aggregate sentence of fifteen years.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Iceberg asserts his fifteen-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate given the nature of his offenses and his character. Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), we may revise a sentence “if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, [we find] that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Our 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).

Our review is deferential to the trial court's decision, and our goal is to determine whether the appellant's sentence is inappropriate, not whether some other sentence would be more appropriate. We consider not only the aggravators and mitigators found by the trial court, but also any other factors appearing in the record. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating his sentence [is] inappropriate.

George v. State, 141 N.E.3d 68, 73-74 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (internal citations omitted), trans. denied. Our review is “holistic” and takes into consideration “the whole picture before us.” Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 127 (Ind. 2024). A defendant need not prove a sentence is inappropriate given both the defendant's character and offense, but “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.

[8] “When considering the nature of the offense, we first look to the advisory sentence for the crime.” McHenry v. State, 152 N.E.3d 41, 46 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). When a sentence deviates from the advisory sentence, “we consider whether there is anything more or less egregious about the offense as committed by the defendant that distinguishes it from the typical offense accounted for by our legislature when it set the advisory sentence.” Madden v. State, 162 N.E.3d 549, 564 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). A Level 4 felony is punishable by a term of imprisonment between two and twelve years, with the advisory sentence being six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5. Because the State conceded Iceberg's convictions arose out of the same episode of criminal conduct, Iceberg's fifteen-year sentence represents the maximum aggregate sentence the trial court could have imposed. See Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(c) & (d).

[9] Iceberg argues his offenses “did not involve grooming over a period of time[.]” (Appellant's Br. at 15.) Iceberg's only prior contact with B.B. was a brief interaction at C.’s house about a week prior to the dates of his offenses, which supports Iceberg's claim he did not engage in extensive grooming. However, in the limited amount of time he knew B.B., Iceberg illegally supplied her and K.H. with marijuana and alcohol, took them to a remote area, and had sexual contact with B.B. multiple times in K.H.’s presence. The conduct caused K.H. to have a panic attack, and B.B. felt “disgusted” after the incidents. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 146.) For these reasons, the nature of Iceberg's offenses does not merit a lesser sentence.

[10] “When considering the character of the offender, one relevant fact is the defendant's criminal history.” Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852, 857 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “Even a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendant's character and demonstrates that he was not deterred by previous contact with the criminal justice system.” Carter v. State, 271 N.E.3d 566, 572 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied. Iceberg's criminal history consists of a conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated ³ and a conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief.⁴ Iceberg was on probation in connection with the criminal mischief conviction at the time he committed the instant offenses. In addition, as a juvenile, Iceberg had been adjudicated delinquent for acts that would constitute Class B misdemeanor unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle if committed by an adult,⁵ and Iceberg violated his terms of probation in connection with that case. Iceberg's criminal history reflects poorly on his character because it demonstrates escalating criminal conduct and an inability to abide by the terms of probation. See, e.g., Rich v. State, 890 N.E.2d 44, 54-55 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (holding defendant's sentence was not inappropriate given his criminal history and commission of offense while on probation), trans. denied. Iceberg notes that he was gainfully employed at the time he committed the instant offenses. However, “most people are employed such that this consideration does not warrant a lesser sentence.” Jones v. State, 218 N.E.3d 3, 16 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied. Iceberg has not demonstrated that his character merits a lesser sentence. Because neither the nature of Iceberg's offenses nor his character demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm the trial court.

Conclusion

[11] Iceberg's fifteen-year aggregate sentence is not inappropriate given the nature of his offenses and his character. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(a)(1) (2022).

2.   This individual is referred to in the transcript by his first name only.

3.   Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2(a) & (b) (1991).

4.   Ind. Code § 35-43-1-2(a)(1) (2022).

5.   Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2.7(d) (2005).

May, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Felix, J., concur.