FILED
Aug 23 2019, 6:14 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
James Harper Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Harper & Harper, LLC Samuel J. Dayton
Valparaiso, Indiana Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ronald E. Kayser, August 23, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-3117
v. Appeal from the LaPorte Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Thomas Alevizos,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
46C01-1709-F6-853
46C01-1711-F5-1068
Pyle, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] Ronald Kayser (“Kayser”) appeals the sentences imposed in two separate
causes. Kayser pled guilty to Level 6 felony failure to register as a sex or violent
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-3117 | August 23, 2019 Page 1 of 14
offender1 in one cause and to Level 5 felony sexual misconduct with a minor2 in
a second cause. The trial court imposed a two-year sentence for Kayser’s Level
6 felony conviction and a five-year sentence for his Level 5 felony conviction,
and it ordered the sentences to be served consecutively to each other. Kayser
argues that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in its determination of
aggravating circumstances and by ordering consecutive sentences; and (2) his
aggregate sentence is inappropriate. Concluding that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion and that Kayser’s sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm
his sentence.
[2] We affirm.
Issues
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when sentencing
Kayser.
2. Whether Kayser’s sentence is inappropriate.
Facts3
[3] In 2001, Kayser was convicted in Florida of a sex offense involving child
fondling, which was a second-degree felony. Thereafter, he was required to
1
IND. CODE § 11-8-8-17.
2
IND. CODE § 35-42-4-9.
3
The facts for each offense as contained in Kayser’s factual basis from his guilty plea in each cause are
somewhat limited to the basic elements of the crimes as necessary to establish a factual basis. Because
Kayser has challenged his sentence as inappropriate, thus requiring us to review the nature of the offenses at
issue, we will include facts, as found in the record before us and that would have been considered by the trial
court, regarding the nature of Kayser’s offenses.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-3117 | August 23, 2019 Page 2 of 14
register on a sex and violent offender registry, which he did when residing in
Indiana. Under the registry, he was also required, among other things, to notify
the sheriff’s department within seventy-two hours of any change in his
employment.
[4] In February 2017, Kayser was fired from his job. Thereafter, in March 2017, he
started working at a new job. Kayser never notified the sheriff’s department of
either change in employment. Five months later, the sheriff’s department
learned that Kayser had changed employment and had not reported it. In
September 2017, the State charged Kayser, under cause 46C01-1709-F6-853
(“Cause F6-853”), with Level 6 felony failure to register based on his failure to
notify law enforcement of his change of employment.
[5] On October 20, 2017, prior to his arrest in Cause F6-853, Kayser, who was
fifty-nine years old at that time, touched and fondled the buttocks and vaginal
area of a fifteen-year-old girl in order to arouse or satisfy his sexual desires.
Specifically, Kayser was riding his bicycle when he saw two teenage girls, J.B.
and F.B., who were locked out of F.B.’s house and trying to get into the
window. Kayser stopped, approached the girls, and offered to lift J.B. into the
window. As he lifted J.B., Kayser touched and rubbed the girl’s buttocks and
vaginal area for about fifteen seconds. Once both girls were inside the house,
they saw Kayser masturbating in the yard outside the window. In November
2017, the State charged Kayser, under cause 46C01-1711-F5-1068 (“Cause F5-
1068”), with Level 5 felony sexual misconduct with a minor and Class A
misdemeanor public indecency.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-3117 | August 23, 2019 Page 3 of 14
[6] On September 28, 2018, Kayser entered a plea agreement in Cause F5-1068.
Kayser agreed to plead guilty to the Level 5 felony sexual misconduct with a
minor in exchange for the State’s dismissal of the Class A misdemeanor public
indecency charge. The plea agreement provided that the State would “remain
silent” at the sentencing hearing. (App. Vol. 2 at 23). The trial court ordered a
presentence investigation report (“PSI”) to be completed and ordered Kayser to
have a psychosexual assessment prior to sentencing.
[7] Kayser’s psychosexual assessment was conducted in October 2018. He was
given two risk assessments,4 and the results of both assessments indicated that
Kayser had a high risk of reoffending. The report from the psychosexual
assessment indicated that Kayser had a poor understanding of sex offending
risk factors; an extensive criminal history, including previous sexual-related
charges; a history of alcohol abuse; and severe problems with community
supervision, including a previous probation violation and failure to register.
The psychosexual assessment report also indicated that short-term incarceration
followed by probation or community supervision was not recommended given
Kayser’s history of non-compliance. The Indiana Risk Assessment System
(“IRAS”) that Kayser completed as part of his PSI also revealed that Kayser
had a high risk to reoffend.
4
The two assessments were the Static-99 and the McGrath Cummings Sex Offender Needs and Progress
Scale.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-3117 | August 23, 2019 Page 4 of 14
[8] On November 14, 2018, Kayser entered a plea agreement in Cause F6-853. He
pled guilty as charged to the Level 6 felony failure to register charge, and the
parties agreed to argue sentencing.
[9] Thereafter, the trial court held a joint sentencing hearing for Cause F5-1068 and
Cause F6-853. The PSI showed that Kayser had a criminal history dating back
four decades and that included twelve criminal convictions in three states. His
convictions included misdemeanor convictions for operating without a license
(1984), public intoxication (1988), disorderly conduct (1988), unlawful use of
marijuana (1989), driving with an impaired ability (1991), operating while
intoxicated (1992), driving without a license (1996), and battery (2016). In the
2016 battery case, Kayser had originally been charged with Level 3 felony
criminal confinement while armed with a deadly weapon and Level 3 felony
kidnapping while armed with a deadly weapon, but he pled guilty to an
amended charge of Class A misdemeanor battery. Kayser also had felony
convictions out of Florida for DUI manslaughter (2001) and a sex offense
involving the fondling a child (2001). Kayser violated probation in his DUI
manslaughter case and had his probation revoked. Additionally, Kayser had
been charged in 1978 in Virginia with three counts of taking indecent liberty
with a child, but the disposition of these charges was unknown.
[10] During the sentencing hearing, one of the teenage girls, J.B., testified about the
devastating effect that Kayser’s sexual misconduct offense in Cause F5-1068
had had on her and on her friend, F.B. Specifically, J.B. testified that Kayser
had a knife that day and that she and F.B. were still scared. J.B. testified that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-3117 | August 23, 2019 Page 5 of 14
she was in therapy because “it messed up [her] mind a little bit.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at
24). J.B. also explained that F.B. was scared to walk home alone or to stay
alone in her own house.
[11] When determining Kayser’s sentences, the trial court found that Kayser’s guilty
plea to the highest-level charge in each cause was a mitigating circumstance.
The trial court specifically noted that Kayser’s guilty plea was “the only thing
saving him from a maximum sentence[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 37). The trial court
found the following aggravating circumstances:
1. The Defendant has a long criminal history, including sex
crimes, causing the death of another human being, and past
charges of the same type of charges he’s pleading to under Cause
46C01-1709-F6-0853.
2. The IRAS and Psychosexual Assessment both indicate a high
level to reoffend. The Defendant’s criminal history indicates
same.
3. The Defendant has a history of not completing probation
without revocations.
4. The Defendant has a prior-related conviction in Orange
County, Florida.
(App. Vol. 2 at 43-44). The trial court imposed a five (5) year sentence for
Kayser’s Level 5 felony sexual misconduct with a minor conviction and a two
(2) year sentence for his Level 6 felony failure to register conviction, and it
ordered that the sentences be served consecutively. The trial court explained
that the “aggravators [we]re more than enough to enhance both sentences and
to run them consecutively.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 37). The trial court also noted that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-3117 | August 23, 2019 Page 6 of 14
the results of Kayser’s psychosexual assessment revealed that he was not a
candidate for probation due to his “high scores, lack of understanding [that] the
nature of the crimes [we]re wrong, as well as past history of not being receptive
to this.” (App. Vol. 2 at 44). Kayser now appeals.
Decision
[12] Kayser contends that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion when sentencing
him; and (2) his sentence is inappropriate. We will review each argument in
turn.
1. Abuse of Discretion
[13] Kayser argues that the trial court abused its discretion in its determination of
aggravating circumstances and by ordering his sentences to be served
consecutively. Sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial
court. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875
N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). So long as the sentence is within the statutory range, it
is subject to review only for an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion
will be found where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the
facts and circumstances before the court or the reasonable, probable, and actual
deductions to be drawn therefrom. Id. A trial court may abuse its discretion in
a number of ways, including: (1) failing to enter a sentencing statement at all;
(2) entering a sentencing statement that includes aggravating and mitigating
factors that are unsupported by the record; (3) entering a sentencing statement
that omits reasons that are clearly supported by the record; or (4) entering a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-3117 | August 23, 2019 Page 7 of 14
sentencing statement that includes reasons that are improper as a matter of law.
Id. at 490-91.
[14] Kayser challenges two of the four aggravating circumstances found by the trial
court. Kayser first challenges the aggravating factor that he was likely to
reoffend. The trial court determined that this aggravating circumstance was
shown by Kayser’s IRAS score, his psychosexual assessment score, and his
criminal history. Kayser contends that it was improper for the trial court to use
his assessment scores as an aggravating circumstance.
[15] We agree that “the offender risk assessment scores do not in themselves
constitute, and cannot serve as, an aggravating or mitigating
circumstance.” J.S. v. State, 928 N.E.2d 576, 578 (Ind. 2010). Our Indiana
Supreme Court has explained that scores on a risk assessment instrument “are
not intended to serve as aggravating or mitigating circumstances nor to
determine the gross length of sentence[.]” Malenchik v. State, 928 N.E.2d 564,
575 (Ind. 2010) (emphasis added). Instead, these “offender assessment
instruments are appropriate supplemental tools for judicial consideration at
sentencing” and can be used by the trial court “in formulating the manner in
which a sentence is to be served.” Id.
[16] While the trial court properly used the assessment scores when deciding that it
would not place Kayser on probation, its use of his assessment scores, in and of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-3117 | August 23, 2019 Page 8 of 14
themselves, as a separate aggravating factor was not proper. See id. 5
Nevertheless, any such impropriety would not require this Court to remand for
resentencing given the trial court’s finding of other valid aggravating
circumstance, two of which Kayser does not challenge. If a trial court abuses
its discretion by improperly considering an aggravating circumstance, we need
to remand for resentencing only “if we cannot say with confidence that the trial
court would have imposed the same sentence had it properly considered
reasons that enjoy support in the record.” Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 491. Here,
the record shows that the trial court’s discussion of aggravating circumstances
focused on Kayser’s criminal history, which included a similar conviction for
child fondling, the serious offense of DUI manslaughter during which he
violated probation, and past charges for inappropriate behavior with a child.
Additionally, our review of the record reveals that the trial court’s imposition of
slightly enhanced sentences was essentially based on the undisputed criminal
history aggravating circumstance. Thus, we are confident that the trial court
would have imposed the same sentences even without reference to the
assessment scores in its list of aggravating factors. Accordingly, we conclude
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when sentencing Kayser. See
5
We note that, under the current advisory sentencing scheme, the trial court could have considered Kayser’s
likeliness to reoffend as either a separate aggravating circumstance or could have, at the very least, used it as
an explanation of the weight given to the criminal history aggravator. See McMahon v. State, 856 N.E.2d 743,
751 n.8 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-3117 | August 23, 2019 Page 9 of 14
Gleason v. State, 965 N.E.2d 702, 712 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (explaining that
“[o]ne valid aggravator alone is enough to enhance a sentence”).
[17] Kayser also challenges the trial court’s determination that his 2001 Florida child
sex offense conviction was an aggravating circumstance. Specifically, he argues
that it was improper for the trial court to find this 2001 conviction to be an
aggravating circumstance separate from the criminal history aggravating
circumstance and that it was improper to use that conviction as an aggravator
to enhance his fail to register conviction in Cause F6-853. Because the 2001
Florida conviction was part of his criminal history, it would have been better
practice for the trial court not to list it as a separate aggravating circumstance.
Nevertheless, our review of the record reveals that the trial court was
highlighting this prior child sex offense conviction when enhancing Kayser’s
sentence for his sexual misconduct with a minor conviction in Cause F5-1068,
not for Cause F6-853. Even without consideration of this specific 2001
conviction as an aggravating circumstance, it is unnecessary to remand for
resentencing because we are confident that the trial court would have imposed
the same sentence given Kayser’s lengthy criminal history, which he does not
challenge as a valid aggravator.
[18] We also reject Kayser’s challenge to the trial court’s imposition of consecutive
sentences. A trial court may order consecutive sentences based on one valid
aggravating factor. Id. Moreover, that one valid aggravator may be used both
to enhance a sentence and to justify consecutive sentences. Id. Here, the trial
court found that Kayser had a “long criminal history” and ordered his sentences
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-3117 | August 23, 2019 Page 10 of 14
to run consecutively. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 37). Kayser’s criminal history aggravating
circumstance, which he does not challenge, is sufficient to justify the imposition
of consecutive sentences. See e.g., Gleason, 965 N.E.2d at 712 (explaining that
the defendant’s unchallenged criminal history aggravating factor alone was
sufficient to justify his consecutive sentences).
2. Inappropriate Sentence
[19] Kayser argues that the aggregate sentence for his Level 5 felony sexual
misconduct with a minor and Level 6 felony failure to register is inappropriate.
He asks this Court to revise each of his sentences to an advisory term and to
order them to be entered as concurrent sentences. Kayser argues that “the facts
of this case simply do not support consecutive sentences that are above the
advisory sentence.” (Kayser’s Br. 16). We disagree.
[20] We may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and the character of the offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). The
defendant has the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate.
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). The principal role of a
Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify some
guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement of the
sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.”
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). “Appellate Rule 7(B)
analysis is not to determine whether another sentence is more appropriate but
rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Conley v. State, 972
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-3117 | August 23, 2019 Page 11 of 14
N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted),
reh’g denied.
[21] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge that
the advisory sentence “is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an
appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081.
Here, Kayser entered a guilty plea in each cause and was convicted of Level 5
felony sexual misconduct with a minor and Level 6 felony failure to register as
a sex or violent offender. A Level 5 felony has a sentencing range of one (1)
year to six (6) years with an advisory sentence of three (3) years. I.C. § 35-50-2-
6. A Level 6 felony has a sentencing range of six (6) months to two and one-
half (2½) years with an advisory sentence of one (1) year. I.C. § 35-50-2-7. The
trial court imposed consecutive sentences of two (2) years for Kayser’s Level 6
felony conviction and five (5) years for his Level 5 felony conviction. Thus, the
trial court imposed an aggregate seven (7) year sentence, which was below the
potential maximum sentence of eight and one-half (8½) years.
[22] Turning first to the nature of Kayser’s failure to register offense in Cause F6-
853, we note that he had a 2001 Florida sex offense involving the fondling a
child that required him to register on the sex and violent offender registry. That
registry required him to, among other things, notify the sheriff’s department
within seventy-two hours of any change in his employment. Kayser was fired
from a job one month and got another job the following month. Not only did
Kayser fail to notify the sheriff’s department of his employment changes within
the required time period, he never notified them at all.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-3117 | August 23, 2019 Page 12 of 14
[23] The nature of Kayser’s sexual misconduct with a minor offense is more
troubling. The fifty-nine-year old Kayser, who was a registered sex offender,
touched and fondled the buttocks and vaginal area of a fifteen-year-old girl in
order to arouse or satisfy his sexual desires. As Kayser was riding a bicycle, he
saw two teenage girls and approached them. When he lifted one of the girls
into a window, he touched and rubbed the girl’s buttocks and vaginal area for
about fifteen seconds. Thereafter, he masturbated in the yard outside the
window. Kayser’s offense had a devastating effect on both girls, who continued
to be scared and had to go to therapy.
[24] Turning to Kayser’s character, we note that his poor character is revealed by an
extensive criminal history that spans decades and includes a probation
revocation. That criminal history includes eight misdemeanor offenses and two
felony convictions. The prior felony convictions include killing another human
being while driving intoxicated and a sex offense against a child that resulted in
his requirement to register on the sex offender registry. Kayser’s criminal
history and current offenses show that he has a disregard for the law, and his
assessment scores show that he has a high risk to reoffend.
[25] Kayser has not persuaded us that his aggregate seven-year sentence for his
Level 5 felony sexual misconduct with a minor and Level 6 felony failure to
register is inappropriate. Therefore, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial
court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-3117 | August 23, 2019 Page 13 of 14
[26] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-3117 | August 23, 2019 Page 14 of 14