Jesse C. Wade, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] For approximately four years, Jesse Wade molested his daughter A.G. Wade was charged with and convicted of numerous counts related to this molestation, and the trial court sentenced him to a total of 105 years of incarceration, with 10 of those years suspended to probation. Wade now appeals, raising one issue for our review: Whether his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In 2011, when A.G. was between 10 and 11 years old, Wade moved in with A.G., A.G.’s mother, and A.G.’s brother in Elkhart County, Indiana. A.G. “was very excited” about Wade moving in and “to have both of [her] parents in the same house”; she “hoped to [build] that relationship that [she had] never had” with Wade. Tr. Vol. III at 162.

[4] When A.G. was “[e]leven or twelve” years old, Tr. Vol. III at 163, Wade began asking A.G. to “get undressed for [him] and walk around” in exchange for “a reward,” id. at 164. A.G. “was confused” by this request. Id. Wade told A.G. “[t]hat it's normal and that's what fathers do. He helped make [her] so he's seen everything. He should be able to see everything.” Id. at 165. After closing the curtains in the living room, Wade would have A.G. take off all her clothes and walk around the living room and kitchen. While A.G. was walking around, Wade would tell her that she was “doing a good job” and “how many more minutes [she had] left” on the timer he had set on his phone. Id. at 170. Wade made A.G. walk around naked for him “[a]t least twenty plus times,” id. at 169, and Wade would “increase” the amount of time he required A.G. to do so “depending on ․ what [A.G.] wanted or what he was willing to give” her, id. at 170.

[5] Beginning when A.G. was “about twelve, thirteen” years old, Tr. Vol. III at 172, Wade “asked [her] to get in like a doggy style position and spread [her] cheeks apart so he could look to see up [her] vagina and up [her] anus.” Id. at 171–72. While this occurred, Wade would tell A.G. that “it looked tight,” id. at 174; A.G. would “[j]ust look[ ] down,” “pay attention to the pattern of the carpet,” and “hope that it would be over soon.” Id. at 172. Wade made A.G. get on all fours and spread her “butt cheeks apart” for him “[a]t least twenty plus” times, and at some point, Wade “started taking pictures” of A.G.’s anus and vagina while he had her in this position. Id. at 173. Wade also “started to put his fingers inside of [A.G.]. He ․ started off with his pinky and he put that in [her] anus, and then he tried to do [her] vagina, but it hurt really, really, really bad so [she] told him to stop,” Tr. Vol. III at 175. Wade inserted his fingers in A.G.’s anus “ten plus” times. Id. at 178. This “was uncomfortable” for A.G. Id. at 176. Wade did not insert his finger in A.G.’s vagina “very many times because it was very uncomfortable for” A.G. and was a “ten” on a pain scale of one to ten. Id. at 178. Wade used a timer for all these interactions, as well. A.G. could “[n]ot always” stand the abuse until the timer was done, so she “would tell [Wade] to stop,” and “[h]e would kind of keep going a little bit and then he would stop.” Id. at 179. Wade would then tell her that she “did a good job.” Id.

[6] Additionally, Wade “wanted to stick his penis inside of [A.G.], and [she] told him no. [She] absolutely didn't want to do that.” Tr. Vol. III at 180. In lieu of his penis or fingers, Wade “used a hot dog to put inside of [A.G.’s] anus,” id. at 179, while she was on “[a]ll fours” in the living room, id. at 181. Wade would “just st[i]ck it in, and then he would pull out and keep putting it in and pull out and keep putting in” until the timer he set was done. Id. at 181. Wade would also tell A.G. that “it was tight and that [she was] doing a good job.” Id. at 182. Wade put a hotdog in A.G.’s anus at least 25 times, and on at least one occasion, Wade “had his hands in his pants” while doing so, id. at 189.

[7] When A.G. was fifteen or sixteen years old, Wade “attempt[ed] to put [a hotdog in A.G.’s] vagina a couple of times,” Tr. Vol. III at 183. A.G. had “started [her] period and ․ started using tampons,” so Wade “thought since [she had] been using tampons that [her] vagina should like have stretched a little bit more.” Id. While in Wade's bedroom, he had A.G. on her back on the bed and “inserted the hotdog into [her] vagina.” Id. at 185. This “hurt really bad,” id.—“more” than when Wade inserted his finger into her vagina, id. at 186—so A.G. “told him to stop,” id. at 185. When Wade would insert a hotdog into A.G.’s vagina, he would tell her that her “vagina was tight.” Id. at 187.

[8] Wade's abuse “almost came to like a routine.” Tr. Vol. III at 188. Wade would normally initiate the abuse by “ask[ing A.G.] if [she] wanted to make some extra money or if [she] wanted anything.” Id. at 189. The “rewards” A.G. received included being “allowed to drive around the neighborhood,” id. at 170; a shopping spree, id. at 183; money; “get[ting] out of trouble,” id. at 193; and an iPhone. When A.G. asked for a car, Wade “wanted to stick his penis inside of [her]. And if he did that, then [A.G.] could get whatever car [she] wanted.” Id. at 196. A.G. refused. And when A.G. refused Wade's other requests, Wade “would give [her] the cold shoulder” and “distance himself from [her].” Id. at 200.

[9] At some point, Wade made A.G. “delete all the text messages that he sent that were kind of inappropriate.” Tr. Vol. III at 201. And before A.G. attended a counseling appointment, Wade “asked [her] if [she] was going to keep [their] secret and not say anything about what he has done to [her] throughout the years.” Id. at 194–95.

[10] Although Wade convinced A.G. that his actions were normal, as A.G. got older and the abuse progressed, she felt “not very good” about it and “would try and avoid him at all costs if [she] could.” Id. at 194. The abuse ended when A.G. was 15 or 16 years old, and she disclosed it several years later.

[11] The State charged Wade with two counts of child molesting as Class A felonies,¹ sexual misconduct with a minor as a Level 4 felony,² attempted incest as a Level 4 felony,³ and incest as a Level 5 felony ⁴ . A jury found Wade guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to a total of 105 years of incarceration, with 10 of those years suspended to probation. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Wade's Sentence Is Not Inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B)

[12] Wade argues his sentence is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B) and should be revised. The Indiana Constitution authorizes us to independently review and revise a trial court's sentencing decision. Russell v. State, 234 N.E.3d 829, 855–56 (Ind. 2024) (citing Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6; Jackson v. State, 145 N.E.3d 783, 784 (Ind. 2020)). That authority is implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), which permits us to revise a sentence if, “after due consideration of the trial court's decision,” we conclude “that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Konkle v. State, 253 N.E.3d 1068, 1092 (Ind. 2025) (quoting McCain v. State, 148 N.E.3d 977, 985 (Ind. 2020)).

[13] Our Supreme Court has explained our role under Appellate Rule 7(B) as follows:

“[O]ur constitutional authority to review and revise sentences boils down to our collective sense of what is appropriate,” Cramer [v. State], 240 N.E.3d [693,] 698 [(Ind. 2024)] (quoting Taylor v. State, 86 N.E.3d 157, 165 (Ind. 2017)), an act that, importantly, is reserved for “exceptional” cases, id. (citing Gibson v. State, 43 N.E.3d 231, 241 (Ind. 2015)). Determining a sentence's appropriateness thus “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.” McCain, 148 N.E.3d at 985.

Konkle, 253 N.E.3d at 1092.

[14] Additionally, the defendant bears the burden of proving that “his or her sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review.” Konkle, 253 N.E.3d at 1092 (quoting Cramer, 240 N.E.3d at 698). And because sentencing “ ‘is principally a discretionary function in which the trial court's judgment should receive considerable deference,’ a trial court's sentencing decision will generally prevail ‘unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense ․ and the defendant's character.’ ” Id. (alteration omitted) (quoting Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015)).

[15] In reviewing the defendant's sentence, “we are not limited to the mitigators and aggravators found by the trial court,” Brown v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1, 4 (Ind. 2014), and we “focus on the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count,” Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 122 (quoting Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225). “[T]o 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. at 127 (citing Connor, 58 N.E.3d at 220).

[16] A trial judge may impose any sentence within the statutory range without regard to the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 489 (Ind. 2007), as amended (July 10, 2007), decision clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). When considering the nature of the offense, we start with the advisory sentence. Brown, 10 N.E.3d at 4 (citing Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 494). Here, Wade was convicted of and sentenced on two Class A felonies, two Level 4 felonies, and one Level 5 felony. “A person who commits a Class A felony ․ shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between twenty (20) and fifty (50) years, with the advisory sentence being thirty (30) years.” Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4(a) (emphasis added). On each of his Class A felony convictions, the trial court sentenced Wade to 40 years executed at the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). “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.” Id. § 35-50-2-5.5 (emphasis added). On his conviction for sexual misconduct with a minor as a Level 4 felony, the trial court sentenced Wade to ten years executed at the DOC. On his conviction for attempted incest as a Level 4 felony, the trial court sentenced Wade to ten years executed at the DOC, with five of those years suspended to probation. “A person who commits a Level 5 felony (for a crime committed after June 30, 2014) shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between one (1) and six (6) years, with the advisory sentence being three (3) years.” Id. § 35-50-2-6(b) (emphasis added). On his Level 5 felony conviction, the trial court sentenced Wade to five years executed at the DOC, with all five years suspended to probation. The trial court ordered Wade to serve all five sentences consecutively, for a total sentence of 105 years executed at the DOC, with 10 of those years suspended to probation.

[17] Where, as here, the trial court deviated from the advisory sentence, one factor we consider is “whether there is anything more or less egregious about the offense committed by the defendant that makes it different from the ‘typical’ offense accounted for by the legislature when it set the advisory sentence.” T.A.D.W. v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1205, 1211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Holloway v. State, 950 N.E.2d 803, 806–07 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011)), as amended (May 26, 2023). We also consider whether the offense was “accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality.” Konkle, 253 N.E.3d at 1093 (quoting Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015)).

[18] For several years, Wade used his familial and parental position of care and trust over A.G. to sexually abuse her. Wade had A.G. walk around the house naked, took pictures of her anus and vagina while she was on all fours, and inserted his fingers and hotdogs into her anus and vagina. Wade also wanted to insert his penis into A.G.’s anus and vagina, but she did not allow him to do so. Wade, recognizing the wrongfulness of his actions, created a reward system tied to the act and amount of time he would request A.G. to do for him.

[19] As a result of Wade's offenses, A.G. suffered from panic attacks and “[v]ery severe” headaches and “migraines every single day ․ to the point [she] couldn't function,” Tr. Vol. III at 204. A.G. coped with the abuse by “hiding in [her] room and not wanting to do anything,” and she “start[ed] to become depressed and hat[e her]self.” Id. at 205. A.G. has also been diagnosed with insomnia. In her victim impact statement, A.G. stated in part,

No words can truly capture the pain of being hurt by your own father, the person who was supposed to love, protect, and guide you. Instead of keeping me safe, my father abused me in the most devastating way imaginable. The trust between a parent and a child is sacred and he shattered it completely. What he did to me has left deep, emotional and psychological scars that I carry with me every single day. Scars that have changed the course of my life forever.

* * *

His actions were not a mistake, a moment of weakness, and something that can be explained. They were deliberate repeated violation[s] of his own child. He made conscious choices to abuse me, and those choices have forever altered my life. He took away my safety, my trust in others, my childhood and parts of myself that I will never get back.

Tr. Vol. IV at 70–71. The abuse A.G. suffered at the hand of her own father is abhorrent, and we cannot say it is undeserving of the aggravated and consecutive sentences given. See Tillett v. State, -- N.E.3d --, No. 25S-CR-231, slip op. at 11–12 (Ind. 2026). In such case, Wade must prove the character prong is all the stronger to justify relief.

[20] In considering the character of the offender, “we engage in a broad consideration of a defendant's qualities,” T.A.D.W., 51 N.E.3d at 1211 (citing Aslinger v. State, 2 N.E.3d 84, 95 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), clarified on other grounds on reh'g), including whether the defendant has “substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character,” Konkle, 253 N.E.3d at 1093 (quoting Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122).

[21] From the mid-1990s to the early-2000s, Wade was convicted of seven misdemeanor offenses, most of which were traffic related, and one felony offense, which was drug related. Wade argues the nearly 22-year gap in his criminal history is deserving of substantial value. However, Wade overlooks that he began committing the offenses here approximately 10 years after his last felony conviction, and approximately 9 years after he completed his last term of probation. Wade sexually abused A.G. for several years. Wade chose criminality, deceit, force, and self-gratification over correcting and concluding his crimes. Although Wade was never stopped by law enforcement or other authorities during this time span and then returned to the behavior, his own sense of proper conduct and recognition of community standards should have stopped him from continuing to engage in this conduct.

[22] In support of his argument that his character outweighs the nature of his offenses, Wade points to his “lack of a serious criminal history as well as its remoteness” and his “very low risk” score on a sexual recidivism risk test. Appellant's Br. at 12. But this evidence is not so substantially virtuous that it outweighs his violation of trust, the lasting trauma he inflicted on A.G., and his criminal history. Based on the serious nature of Wade's offense and his history of criminal or otherwise deviant behavior, we cannot say that Wade has produced compelling evidence demonstrating that the nature of his offense or his character renders his sentence inappropriate. See Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 160 (Ind. 2019) (per curiam) (affirming 90-year sentence for three counts of child molesting as Class A felonies, but revising suspended portion of sentence from 20 years to 30 years); Parker v. State, 273 N.E.3d 500 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (affirming 212-year sentence for 13 convictions related to defendant's molestation of his biological niece, who was also his stepdaughter), trans. not sought; Tillett, -- N.E.3d --, No. 25S-CR-231, slip op. at 9–13 (affirming 80-year sentence for two counts of child molesting as Level 1 felonies stemming from defendant's abuse of her two daughters). We therefore affirm Wade's sentence.

[23] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a)(1) (effective July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2014).

2.   I.C. § 35-42-4-9(a)(1) (effective July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2018).

3.   I.C. §§ 35-46-1-3(a), 35-41-4-1.

4.   I.C. § 35-46-1-3(a).

Felix, Judge.

May, J., and Mathias, J., concur.