Timothy Ian Adam Elders, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After pleading guilty to Level 4 felony child molesting, Timothy Ian Adam Elders was sentenced to nine years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). Elders now appeals his sentence, arguing it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On September 18, 2020, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) launched an investigation into Elders after officials in the United Kingdom flagged his activity on a social media app. Elders sent messages in anonymous group chats about his then seven or eight-year-old daughter, Victim One, who he described as “so rapeable.”¹ Tr. Vol. II p. 30. He gave Victim One “melatonin” or “Nyquil” and would then touch her “vagina area” while she slept. Id. at 35, 30. During an interview with the FBI, Elders admitted he touched Victim One “once” and said he did “not usually” masturbate in the same room as her. App. Vol. II p. 35.²

[3] In 2021, Victim One was forensically interviewed by the Lake County Sheriff's Department Special Victims Unit. She disclosed that Elders tried to do “s-e-x” with her and “rubbed [her]” on her “va-jay-jay[.]” Id. When this happened, “she was sleeping and felt it, but didn't want to wake up.” Id. Elders also took a video of Victim One sleeping and “zoomed in on her genital area.” Tr. Vol. II p. 32.

[4] On July 11, 2023, the State charged Elders with Level 4 felony child molesting. On August 22, 2025, pursuant to a plea agreement, Elders pled guilty as charged. The parties left sentencing to the trial court's discretion.

[5] The Lake County Probation Office completed a presentence investigation (PSI) report. Although Elders did not have any prior convictions, he was charged with felony distribution of child pornography and felony possession of child pornography in the Northern District Court of Indiana in August 2025. During the PSI, Elders admitted he had a history of abusing alcohol, marijuana, Klonopin, and Xanax. In a handwritten statement accompanying his PSI, Elders said he “begged” B.C., Victim One's mother, not to make him take Victim One and her siblings for visitation because they “werent [sic] safe with [him] in [his] mental and physiaal [sic] state.” App. Vol. II p. 38 (capitalization omitted). But he said she “pretty much force[d him] to take the children[.]” Id. (capitalization omitted).

[6] On October 2, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. B.C. testified that her daughter suffered from major depression and anxiety following the molestation. Victim One engaged in self-harming, experienced suicidal ideation, and has been institutionalized twice. Elders apologized for his conduct but again blamed B.C., stating she “insisted” he take Victim One and his two other children for visitation. Tr. Vol. II p. 37.

[7] The trial court found the following aggravating factors: (1) Elders’ character was “manipulative[;]” (2) he violated a position of trust as Victim One's father; and (3) Victim One was less than twelve years old at the time of the offense. App. Vol. II p. 46. The court identified Elders’ guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility as a mitigating factor. Finding the aggravators outweighed the mitigators, the court sentenced Elders to nine years executed in the DOC. Elders now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Elders argues his nine-year sentence in the DOC is inappropriate. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) permits an appellate court to revise a sentence authorized by statute 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.” We give “considerable deference” to the trial court's sentencing decision and attempt only to “leaven the outliers” rather than achieve the “perceived ‘correct’ result” in every case. Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 122 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222, 1225 (Ind. 2008)).

Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) is a rare avenue for appellate relief that is reserved for exceptional cases. Even with Rule 7(B), sentencing is principally a discretionary function in which the trial court's judgment should receive considerable deference. Such deference should prevail 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). Absent such a sufficiently compelling evidentiary basis, we will not override the decision of ․ the trial court.

Sorenson v. State, 133 N.E.3d 717, 728 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (citations, quotations, and brackets omitted), trans. denied.

[9] A person convicted of a Level 4 felony shall be sentenced to a fixed term of between two and twelve years, with an advisory sentence of six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5 (2014). Here, the trial court imposed a nine-year sentence, three years more than the advisory but less than the maximum sentence he could have received.

[10] As to the nature of his offense, we look at “the extent and depravity of the offense[.]” Crabtree v. State, 152 N.E.3d 687, 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied. Here, Elders’ offense was reprehensible: he plied his own daughter with melatonin or Nyquil and then rubbed her “vagina area.” Tr. Vol. II p. 30. And Elders’ abuse of his position of care and trust over his daughter by molesting her at the tender age of seven or eight years old is abhorrent. See Hart v. State, 829 N.E.2d 541, 544 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (finding defendant's sentence for child molestation felonies appropriate, in part, because defendant violated position of trust as victim's father). His conduct displayed a lack of restraint or regard for Victim One's well-being and resulted in significant psychological trauma for her. He has not produced any evidence, let alone “compelling evidence[,]” that portrays this offense in a positive light. Sorenson, 133 N.E.3d at 728.

[11] Turning to his character, Elders argues his guilty plea, expression of “sincere remorse[,]” and lack of prior convictions reflect positively on his character. Appellant's Br. p. 8. Still, Elders has not demonstrated “substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character” which warrant revision of his sentence. Sorenson, 133 N.E.3d at 728. Elders attempted to shift blame to B.C. for “forc[ing him]” to take Victim One, casting doubt on the sincerity of his remorse and degrading his character. App. Vol. II p. 38; see Higginson v. State, 209 N.E.3d 15, 30 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (finding defendant's attempt to shift blame reflected poorly on her character). He also bragged about abusing Victim One and called her “so rapeable” in anonymous group chats, displaying a repulsive willingness to victimize her. Tr. Vol. II p. 30. Elders’ other conduct—including recording a video of Victim One that “zoomed in on her genital area” and masturbating in the same room as her—further shows his depravity. Id. at 32. While we acknowledge Elders has no prior convictions, his admitted substance abuse indicates a disregard for the rule of law, which reflects poorly on his character. See Reynolds v. State, 142 N.E.3d 928, 945 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (considering evidence of uncharged conduct as part of the Rule 7(B) character analysis), trans. denied. And his pending felony charges for possession and distribution of child pornography indicate his criminal conduct has not been deterred even after being subjected to the State's police authority in this case. See Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Cotto v. State, 829 N.E.2d 520, 526 (Ind. 2005)). Elders’ sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense or his character. We affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The victim in this case is identified as “Victim One” in the probable cause affidavit, the charging information, at sentencing, and in Elders’ appellate brief. We do the same.

2.   In addition to the arguments presented at Elders’ sentencing hearing, the court considered his presentence investigation report, which included the probable cause affidavit to provide the “circumstances attending” and the “official version” of the present offense. App. Vol. II pp. 22, 25 (capitalization omitted). Therefore, we look to the affidavit for additional details of Elders’ offense.

Scheele, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.