Brandon Stewart Temple v. State of Indiana

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 12 2014, 9:52 am
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:
ANDREW B. ARNETT GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
BRIAN REITZ
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
BRANDON STEWART TEMPLE, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 41A01-1403-CR-144
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE JOHNSON SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Cynthia S. Emkes, Judge
Cause No. 41D02-1012-FA-8
November 12, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
KIRSCH, Judge
Brandon Stewart Temple pleaded guilty to child molesting1 as a Class B felony and
was sentenced to thirteen years with nine years executed and four years suspended. He
appeals, raising the following restated issue for our review: whether his sentence was
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.
We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Temple started dating D.S. in 2008 and moved in to D.S.’s home later that year.
D.S.’s daughter, T.H., moved in with her mother and Temple in July 2009. T.H. had
recently lost her father as well as two of her sisters and began to open up to and trust
Temple. Temple viewed himself as a father figure to T.H. as well.
On November 27, 2012, around 1:15 a.m., while D.S., who was pregnant, and the
couple’s one-year-old daughter were upstairs asleep, Temple was downstairs with then
thirteen-year-old T.H. Temple showed T.H. a pornographic video. He had previously
shown T.H. pornographic cartoons and made sexually inappropriate comments to her.
After showing T.H. the video, Temple began to massage T.H.’s back, feet, and legs.
Temple moved his hand inside of T.H.’s underwear and inserted his finger in her vagina.
Temple admitted that he was aroused and had an erection when he did this. At some point,
Temple thought that T.H. had fallen asleep and told her to go to her room if she was tired.
T.H. went to her room and texted a friend that “she had been raped by her mother’s
boyfriend.” Appellant’s App. at 53.
1
See Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a)(1). We note that, effective July 1, 2014, a new version of this
criminal statute was enacted. Because Temple committed his crime prior to July 1, 2014, we will apply the
statute in effect at the time he committed his crime.
2
The next day, police officers went to the home after receiving a report from T.H.’s
friend. Temple admitted to police what he had done to T.H. and wrote out a signed, written
statement admitting the crime. The State charged him with Class A felony child molesting.
Although, he had previously admitted what he had done to T.H., he later recanted and
began blaming others, including T.H., and claimed that he was set up. Temple did not
agree to a plea agreement for three years.
Because of Temple’s actions, T.H. was diagnosed with severe depression, post-
traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), anxiety, attention deficit disorder (“ADD”), night
terrors, self-mutilation, and an eating disorder. T.H. attempted to commit suicide in May
2011, and prior to the sentencing hearing, she had completed an eleven-day partial
hospitalization due to stress. At the sentencing hearing, T.H. testified that she feared going
to sleep “because of my night terrors” and could not “go into a small crowd without having
a panic attack.” Sentencing Tr. at 45. While the case was pending, T.H. made intermittent
progress, but would suffer setbacks due to three years of trial preparation.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found the following mitigating
circumstances: Temple pleaded guilty and did not put T.H. and her family through a trial;
Temple had no prior criminal record; and Temple had family support. The trial court found
the following to be aggravating circumstances: risk to re-offend; Temple was in a position
of care for T.H.; and harm to T.H. that was above what a normal victim would experience.
After finding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances,
the trial court sentenced Temple to thirteen years with nine years executed and four years
suspended to probation. Temple now appeals.
3
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Temple argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense
and the character of the offender. Initially, we note that our Supreme Court has clarified
that inappropriate sentence and abuse of discretion claims are to be analyzed separately.
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218(Ind. 2007). However, in the present case, Temple seems to intermingle his inappropriate
sentence argument with references to the finding of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances under the abuse of discretion standard. Although he raises an
appropriateness contention, Temple’s arguments seem to focus on the weight given, or not
given, to mitigating circumstances. These are not proper assertions because a trial court
no longer has any obligation to weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and
cannot be said to have abused its discretion in failing to properly weigh such factors. Id.Appellate courts may revise a sentence after careful review of the trial court’s
decision if they conclude that the sentence is inappropriate based on the nature of the
offense and the character of the offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). Even if the trial court
followed the appropriate procedure in arriving at its sentence, the appellate court still
maintains a constitutional power to revise a sentence it finds inappropriate. Hope v. State,
834 N.E.2d 713, 718 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). The defendant has the burden of persuading
the appellate court that his sentence is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 267
(Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Here, as to the nature of the offense, Temple molested T.H. and abused a position
of trust he held in regards to her. Temple had gained T.H.’s trust, and she had confided in
4
him as she would her father, who had recently passed away. Temple took advantage of
T.H.’s trust and innocence and destroyed both in one night. Although, as Temple asserts,
this was a one-time incident, he was arrested the day after it occurred and remained
incarcerated until he finally pleaded guilty. Prior to the molestation, Temple groomed T.H.
by gaining her trust, and then began showing her pornographic cartoons and videos and
making sexually inappropriate comments. At the time the molestation occurred, Temple’s
young daughter and pregnant girlfriend were asleep upstairs.
Additionally, the significant harm to T.H. as a result of this crime makes Temple’s
offense even more egregious. The harm suffered by T.H. was substantial and greater than
the elements necessary to prove the crime charged. T.H. had been diagnosed with severe
depression, PTSD, anxiety, ADD, night terrors, self-mutilation, and an eating disorder. She
had attempted to commit suicide and had completed an eleven-day partial hospitalization.
She feared going to sleep because of night terrors and would suffer panic attacks when she
went into even small crowds. While the case was pending, T.H. made progress, but would
suffer setbacks due to three years of trial preparation.
As to Temple’s character, although he did plead guilty, it was only after three years
of recanting his initial confession, blame-shifting, and requesting postponements and
delays of the trial proceedings. Prior to this offense, Temple had no criminal record and
had been consistently employed for at least a year. He also had a supportive family that
was willing to help him. However, even after he pleaded guilty, Temple did not seem to
understand the damage he inflicted on T.H. At the sentencing hearing, he was more
concerned with his own feelings rather than the damage and harm he caused T.H. We
5
conclude that Temple’s thirteen-year sentence with nine years executed was not
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.
Affirmed.
BAKER, J., and ROBB, J., concur.
6