MEMORANDUM DECISION
Bailey, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Kirk Lonas appeals his convictions and sentence for two counts of Child Molesting, as Level 4 felonies.
1
We affirm.
Issues
[2] Lonas presents two issues for review:
I. Whether the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions because the testimony against him was incredibly dubious; and
II. Whether his sentence is inappropriate.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Some time prior to 2019, Lonas was introduced to K.G. as a potential romantic partner. K.G. lived in Ohio with her four children, a set of twins born in 2005 and another set of twins born in 2007. Lonas lived in Indiana. After some long-distance communications and a few in-person meetings, K.G. and Lonas decided that K.G. and her children would move to Indiana and live with Lonas. This would allow K.G.’s children, who had recently lost their father, to be closer to their grandparents.
[4] In August of 2019, K.G. sent her son and one of her younger daughters, Ca.C., to live with Lonas. At that time, Lonas assumed the responsibilities of day-to-day supervision and providing some financial support. K.G. remained in Ohio for several weeks with her other two children, allowing the eldest daughter to finish cheerleading camp.
[5] Lonas began to offer twelve-year-old Ca.C. massages after her sports events. Ca.C. testified that some were “normal,” and others were not. (Tr. Vol. III, pg. 88.) At times, Lonas would massage Ca.C.’s thighs and buttocks. Later, the massages progressed to Lonas rubbing Ca.C.’s vagina while she was clothed. Eventually, Lonas would have his finger “poking [Ca.C.’s] vagina.” (Id. at 96.) Ca.C. estimated that Lonas touched her vagina on three or four occasions. The illicit massages stopped when K.G. moved in with her other children, although Lonas continued to massage Ca.C.’s neck muscles and buy her presents. Also, an incident occurred in which Lonas “grabbed” the breasts of Ca.C. and her twin sister, purportedly to “measure” their growth and ascertain which twin was maturing faster. (Id. at 100.)
[6] After K.G. moved in with Lonas, they shared a room but never developed an intimate relationship. Within “a couple of months,” Lonas turned his attention to twelve-year-old Cl.C. (Tr. Vol. II, pg. 217.) Lonas touched Cl.C.’s breasts and vagina, while she was clothed, on several occasions. He also touched her under her clothing. Lonas would “rub” Cl.C. and caution her “dont tell.” (Id. at 223.) Cl.C.’s testimony was that there had been “numerous assaults,” at least one of which she characterized as “rape.” (Id. at 233; Vol. III, pg. 27.)
[7] K.G. took her children to a pediatric appointment, and one of the children disclosed the molestations. The Hancock County Department of Child Services initiated an investigation and each of K.G.’s children submitted to forensic interviews. On December 7, 2021, the State of Indiana charged Lonas with four counts of Child Molesting, two as Level 1 felonies and two as Level 4 felonies. Lonas was located and arrested in the State of Missouri.
2
[8] Lonass jury trial commenced on July 11, 2023. He was acquitted of the Level 1 charges and convicted of the Level 4 charges. On September 21, Lonas received consecutive sentences, each consisting of twelve years with one year suspended to probation. Lonas now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
Sufficiency of the Evidence
[9] “A person who, with a child under fourteen (14) years of age, performs or submits to any fondling or touching, of either the child or the older person, with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the older person, commits child molesting, a Level 4 felony.” Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b).
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, “appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict.” Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007) (quoting McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005)) (emphasis added in Drane). Reviewing courts should not “assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction.” Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146 (citing Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 905-06 (Ind. 2005)). Convictions should be affirmed unless “no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146-47 (quoting Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 2000)).
Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 754 (Ind. 2015).
[10] Cl.C. and Ca.C., twins born in March of 2007, each testified that Lonas had fondled their breasts and vaginas on multiple occasions. “A conviction can be sustained on only the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, even when that witness is the victim.” Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012). However, Lonas asks that we discard the victim testimony here because “the testimony of the alleged victims was dubious and incredible” and “there was no tangible evidence [he] committed the alleged offenses.” Appellants Brief at 5.
[11] The “incredible dubiosity rule” impinges upon the jurys responsibility to judge the credibility of the witnesses and thus is limited in scope. Moore, 27 N.E.3d at 755. It has application only where there is “1) a sole testifying witness; 2) testimony that is inherently contradictory, equivocal, or the result of coercion; and 3) a complete absence of circumstantial evidence.” Id. at 756. Here, Cl.C. and Ca.C. testified without contradiction or equivocation that Lonas fondled their breasts and vaginas. There is no evidence of coercion. The application of the incredible dubiosity rule is not warranted and there is, accordingly, sufficient evidence to support Lonass convictions.
Sentence
[12] A person who commits a Level 4 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two and twelve years, with the advisory sentence being six years. I.C. § 35-50-2-5.5. For each offense, Lonas received the maximum sentence, but with one year suspended. Pointing to his lack of a criminal history and claimed unlikeliness to reoffend, Lonas argues that his sentences should be revised to four years for each offense, with one year of each sentence suspended, resulting in an aggregate executed sentence of six years.
[13] Pursuant to Appellate Rule 7(B), we “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial courts decision,” we find “that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Because sentencing is principally a discretionary function, we reserve our authority for “exceptional cases.” Livingston v. State, 113 N.E.3d 611, 613 (Ind. 2018). As our Supreme Court has explained, deference to the trial court “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 defendants character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). We are guided in appellate review to focus on the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—the consecutive or concurrent sentences, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Ultimately, the defendant bears the burden of persuading us that the sentence is inappropriate. Harris v. State, 165 N.E.3d 91, 99 (Ind. 2021).
[14] Lonas committed multiple offenses against multiple victims. When Ca.C. was victimized, she was completely in Lonass custody, as her father was recently deceased, and her mother was living in Ohio. Lonas violated his position of trust as he continued to molest the isolated twelve-year-old. Lonas cautioned the child to keep silent about his conduct. After Cl.C. arrived at the home, Lonas committed “numerous assaults” against her. (Tr. Vol. III, pg. 27.) The nature of the offenses does not militate toward a lesser sentence. See e.g., Pittman v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1246, 1259 (Ind. 2008) (recognizing that “consecutive sentences reflect the significance of multiple victims”).
[15] An offenders character is shown by his “life and conduct.” Adams v. State, 120 N.E.3d 1058, 1065 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Lonas does not have a known criminal history. However, he groomed his victims by first offering innocuous massages and also providing gifts such as cellphones and shopping trips to a lingerie store. He volunteered for a position of trust and then violated that trust, which reflects poorly on his character.
Conclusion
[16] Sufficient evidence supports Lonass convictions. His sentence is not inappropriate.
[17] Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b).
2
. K.G. subsequently pled guilty to charges of Neglect of a Dependent.
Memorandum Decision by Judge Bailey
Chief Judge Altice and Judge Mathias concur.
Altice, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.