Ralph Hughett v. State of Indiana

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Jan 26 2015, 9:38 am
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jeffrey D. Stonebraker Gregory F. Zoeller
Clark County Chief Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Jeffersonville, Indiana
Graham T. Youngs
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ralph Hughett, January 26, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
10A05-1406-CR-280
v. Appeal from the Clark Circuit Court
The Honorable Vicki L. Carmichael,
Judge
State of Indiana, Cause No. 10C04-0910-FA-307
Appellee-Plaintiff
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1406-CR-280 | January 26, 2015 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Ralph Hughett appeals the fifty-year sentence imposed by the trial court
following his guilty plea to one count of class A felony child molesting and one
count of class C felony child molesting. Hughett molested two of his
granddaughters. He claims that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the
nature of his offenses and his character. Finding that Hughett has not met his
burden to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Hughett fondled, touched, and had sexual intercourse with his granddaughter
V.P. on multiple occasions beginning in 2000, when she was five years old, and
continuing until 2009 when she was fourteen years old. The molestations of
V.P. occurred both in Indiana and in Illinois. Also, on one occasion between
2001 and 2002, Hughett touched his other granddaughter A.P. on her vagina
under her clothes when she was five years old.
[3] The State charged Hughett with five counts of class A felony child molesting
and five counts of class C felony child molesting regarding victim V.P. The
State also charged Hughett with one count of class C felony child molesting
regarding victim A.P. On March 10, 2014, Hughett pled guilty to one count of
class A felony child molesting regarding V.P. and one count of class C felony
child molesting regarding A.P. The plea agreement provided for concurrent
sentences. Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced Hughett to fifty years
on the class A felony count and eight years on the class C felony count, to be
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1406-CR-280 | January 26, 2015 Page 2 of 5
served concurrently, for an aggregate sentence of fifty years. 1 This appeal
ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Hughett invites this Court to reduce his fifty-year sentence pursuant to Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that we may revise a sentence authorized
by statute 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.” The defendant bears the burden to persuade this Court that
his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080
(Ind. 2006). “[W]hether we regard a sentence as appropriate at the end of the
day 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). We
recognize that the “principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to
leaven the outliers and to identify some guiding principles for trial courts and
those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a
1
Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court ordered Hughett’s fifty-year aggregate sentence to be served
consecutive to the eight-year sentence Hughett is currently serving in Illinois for a prior conviction for
predatory criminal sexual assault also involving victim V.P.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1406-CR-280 | January 26, 2015 Page 3 of 5
perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Id. at 1225. Indeed, “[t]he question
under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more appropriate:
rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” King v.
State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
[5] The sentencing range for a class A felony is between twenty and fifty years with
the advisory sentence being thirty years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4. The sentencing
range for a class C felony is between two and eight years with the advisory
sentence being four years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6. The trial court imposed the
maximum sentence on each offense, to be served concurrently, for an aggregate
sentence of fifty years. Hughett believes that this sentence is an outlier. We
disagree.
[6] As for the nature of his offenses, Hughett fondled, touched, and had sexual
intercourse with his granddaughter V.P. on multiple occasions beginning when
she was just five years old and continuing until she was fourteen years old. He
threatened V.P. by telling her that if she told anyone what was happening “he
couldn’t be [her] papaw anymore.” Tr. at 31. V.P. was afraid to reveal the
molestations because her “mamaw” had passed away and Hughett was the only
parent V.P.’s mom had left. Id. On at least one occasion, Hughett also touched
his other granddaughter A.P.’s buttocks and her vagina inside her clothing.
A.P. was only five years old at the time. Hughett attempts to minimize the
heinousness of these offenses by arguing that he never threatened his victims
with physical harm in order to perpetrate his crimes. We consider his use of
emotional control and psychological abuse to be just as reprehensible under the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1406-CR-280 | January 26, 2015 Page 4 of 5
circumstances. These crimes involved the continued abuse of the position of
trust between a grandfather and his young grandchildren. The nature of the
offenses does not warrant a sentence reduction.
[7] As for his character, Hughett argues that his guilty plea should reflect positively
on his character because he spared his victims the trauma of a trial. However,
we cannot ignore the immense benefit Hughett received in exchange for his
plea, as he gained the dismissal of nine additional felony counts and the
guaranteed imposition of concurrent sentences. Hughett’s guilty plea was
clearly a pragmatic decision that is not necessarily a reflection of good
character. Moreover, Hughett’s criminal history reflects negatively on his
character. See Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)
(when considering the character of the offender, one relevant fact is the
defendant’s criminal history). As specifically noted by the trial court, Hughett
was previously convicted of the predatory criminal sexual assault of V.P. in
Illinois and, at the time of sentencing, was still serving an eight-year-sentence
for that crime. In sum, Hughett has not met his burden to demonstrate that his
fifty-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses or his
character, and we decline his invitation for sentence reduction.
[8] Affirmed.
FRIEDLANDER, J., and KIRSCH, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1406-CR-280 | January 26, 2015 Page 5 of 5