MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Apr 12 2016, 8:01 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Brian J. May Gregory F. Zoeller
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Katherine Modesitt Cooper
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Candelario Rangel, April 12, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
71A04-1512-CR-2159
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable John M.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Marnocha, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
71D02-1504-F1-7
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1512-CR-2159 | April 12, 2016 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary and Issue
[1] Following a bench trial, Candelario Rangel was convicted of two counts of
Level 1 felony child molesting. Rangel appeals, raising the sole issue of
whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions. Concluding the
State presented sufficient evidence, we affirm Rangel’s convictions.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Rangel is B.V.’s grandfather. In 2014, Rangel’s grandchildren often visited his
home in South Bend, Indiana. Rangel’s son, Jorge, also lived in the house.
Occasionally during visits the children would leave Rangel’s house and walk to
a nearby convenience store to buy snacks. However, B.V. usually stayed
behind with Rangel, at Rangel’s insistence. Often when the children returned,
B.V. would be exiting Rangel’s bedroom, money in hand. The door of the
bedroom was otherwise always locked. On one occasion, Jorge noticed B.V.
“touching herself.” Transcript at 56. When he asked B.V. why she was doing
this, she said “someone had taught her how.” Id.
[3] At some point, B.V.’s older brother, L.A., became suspicious. He noticed
Rangel kissed B.V. “not as the way a grandpa should.” Id. at 19. When he
asked B.V. about their grandfather, B.V. started to cry and told L.A. that
Rangel would kiss her when they were alone. L.A. immediately told their
mother, who called the police. The South Bend Police Department assigned
the case to Detective Douglas Masterson. Detective Masterson observed B.V.’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1512-CR-2159 | April 12, 2016 Page 2 of 6
forensic interview at the CASIE Center, at which time B.V. disclosed Rangel
had kissed her “private.” Appendix at 11. Using a diagram, she indicated her
“private” referred to her vagina. Id.
[4] Detective Masterson interviewed several other family members and then
arranged an interview with Rangel, a native Spanish speaker. A bilingual
officer was present during the interview with Rangel to assist with translation as
needed. After being advised of his Miranda rights in both English and Spanish,
Rangel agreed to speak with Detective Masterson. In the course of the
interview, Rangel admitted to placing his mouth on B.V.’s vagina while they
were alone in his bedroom. According to Rangel, six-year-old B.V. jumped on
his bed and pulled her pants down on her own. He stated “he was going
through a depression” and “couldn’t help himself” when she pulled her pants
down. Tr. at 77. Thereafter, B.V. disclosed to a victim advocate that Rangel
had also touched her “private” with his penis. App. at 13.
[5] Rangel was arrested and charged with two counts of Class A felony child
molesting and two counts of Level 1 felony child molesting. Counts I and II
alleged Rangel performed sexual deviate conduct and sexual intercourse with
B.V. sometime between October 19, 2012, and June 30, 2014. Counts III and
IV alleged he performed sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct with B.V.
between July 1, 2014, and October 17, 2014.1 Prior to trial, Rangel filed a
1
Effective July 1, 2014, Indiana replaced “classes” of felonies with “levels” of felonies. See Pub. L. No. 168-
2014; Pub. L. No. 158-2013.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1512-CR-2159 | April 12, 2016 Page 3 of 6
motion to suppress the statements he made during the interview with Detective
Masterson. The trial court denied the motion, and a bench trial was held.
[6] B.V. testified Rangel pulled down her pants, kissed her mouth and “private,”
and “put his private in [her] private.” Tr. at 29, 35. When asked what she
considered to be her “private,” B.V. circled the vagina on a drawing of a girl;
when asked what she considered to be her grandfather’s “private,” she circled
the penis on a drawing of a boy. See id. at 30-31; State’s Exhibits 7, 8. She
testified it happened “more than one time” at her grandfather’s house, tr. at 31-
32, and stated he gave her money and promised to buy her “big girl makeup” if
she did not tell anyone what he did, id. at 33. Rangel also testified. He
admitted Jorge had asked if he ever “touched [B.V.’s] private things,” id. at 140,
but he denied molesting B.V. Rangel claimed he lied to the police when he
admitted to placing his mouth on B.V.’s vagina.
[7] The trial court found Rangel guilty of Counts III and IV and not guilty of
Counts I and II. In its written findings, the trial court explained that it
considered the victim’s testimony “credible and persuasive” but did not find
any evidence to support the allegations of abuse occurring prior to July 1, 2014.
App. at 25. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Rangel to thirty-five years on
each count, to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. This
appeal followed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1512-CR-2159 | April 12, 2016 Page 4 of 6
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
[8] In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider only the probative
evidence and reasonable inferences that support the verdict. Drane v. State, 867
N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We consider conflicting evidence most favorably
to the trial court’s ruling and will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable
fact-finder could find the elements of the offense proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. Id. “It is the fact-finder’s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess
witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient
to support a conviction.” Id.
II. Child Molesting
[9] Indiana Code section 35-42-4-3(a)(1) (2014) provides in relevant part,
A person who, with a child under fourteen (14) years of age,
knowingly or intentionally performs or submits to sexual
intercourse or other sexual conduct . . . commits child molesting,
a Level 3 felony. However, the offense is a Level 1 felony if . . . it
is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age[.]
“Other sexual conduct” includes an act involving “a sex organ of one (1) person
and the mouth or anus of another person.” Indiana Code section 35-31.5-2-
221.5(1).
[10] Rangel was convicted of two counts of Level 1 felony child molesting. He
argues this court should reweigh the evidence because he recanted his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1512-CR-2159 | April 12, 2016 Page 5 of 6
confession at trial. Accordingly, “the trier of fact could have discounted its’
[sic] evidentiary value.” Brief of Appellant at 7. He contends that without his
confession, the evidence is insufficient because the case would rest solely on the
victim’s testimony.
[11] Our supreme court has held the uncorroborated testimony of a victim is
sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for child molesting. Carter v. State,
754 N.E.2d 877, 880 (Ind. 2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 831 (2002). But more
importantly, our standard of review is clear. We do not reweigh evidence or
assess the credibility of witnesses. Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146. B.V. testified
Rangel kissed her “private” and “put his private in [her] private.” Tr. at 29, 35.
Rangel admitted during the investigation he placed his mouth on B.V.’s vagina,
and the trial court admitted his confession. Other family members testified to
inappropriate kissing and to B.V. “touching herself” because “someone had
taught her how.” Id. at 56. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to prove
sixty-year-old Rangel knowingly performed sexual intercourse or other sexual
conduct with B.V., a six-year-old child.
Conclusion
[12] The evidence is sufficient to support Rangel’s convictions for Level 1 felony
child molesting. We therefore affirm his convictions.
[13] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1512-CR-2159 | April 12, 2016 Page 6 of 6