MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 30 2019, 10:26 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Anna Onaitis Holden Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Zionsville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Sierra A. Murray
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Victor Morales, December 30, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1078
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Barbara L.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Crawford, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G01-1410-FA-47700
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1078 | December 30, 2019 Page 1 of 5
Statement of the Case
[1] Victor Morales (“Morales”), appeals, following a jury trial, the thirty (30) year
advisory sentence imposed by the trial court. Specifically, Morales argues that
the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him on his Class A felony
conviction because it did not enter a sentencing statement. Concluding that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the sentence imposed by the
trial court.
[2] We affirm.
Issue
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Morales.
Facts
[3] In 2006, Morales married Yadira Rodriguez-Martinez (“Rodriguez-Martinez”).
At the time of their marriage, Rodriguez-Martinez had two children, including
J.B. (“J.B.”), the victim. Morales and Rodriguez-Martinez were married from
2006 to 2009. Sometime between 2007 and 2008, when J.B. was five-years-old,
she was home alone with Morales while her mother was at work. Morales
called J.B. into the living room while he was watching television. Morales then
removed his pants and instructed J.B. to place her mouth on his penis. J.B.
complied and afterwards Morales warned J.B to “not tell [her] mom.” (Tr. Vol.
2 at 69).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1078 | December 30, 2019 Page 2 of 5
[4] Thereafter, in March 2014, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department
Sergeant Gregory Norris (“Sergeant Norris”), received a report that alleged that
Morales had molested J.B. sometime between 2007 and 2008, and he
conducted an investigation.
[5] In October 2014, the State charged Morales with Class A felony child
molesting. After several continuances and cancelled hearings, Morales was
tried by a jury in March 2019. Rodriguez-Martinez, J.B., Sergeant Norris, and
one of J.B.’s former teachers testified to the facts above. The jury found
Morales guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Morales to an advisory
sentence of thirty (30) years executed in the Department of Correction.
Morales now appeals.
Decision
[6] Morales contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced
him on his Class A felony conviction. 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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1078 | December 30, 2019 Page 3 of 5
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 sentencing statement that includes reasons that
are improper as a matter of law. Id. at 490–91.
[7] Morales argues that the trial court abused its discretion because it did not enter
a sentencing statement. However, INDIANA CODE § 35-38-1-1.3 provides that
“[a]fter a court has pronounced a sentence for a felony conviction, the court
shall issue a statement of the court’s reasons for selecting the sentence that it
imposes unless the court imposes the advisory sentence for the felony.” (emphasis
added). Here, Morales was convicted of Class A felony child molesting. The
sentencing range for a Class A felony is for a fixed term “between twenty (20)
and fifty (50) years, with the advisory sentencing being thirty (30) years.” I.C. §
35-50-2-4(a). The trial court sentenced Morales to the advisory sentence of
thirty (30) years. Accordingly, because the trial court sentenced Morales to the
advisory sentence for his felony conviction, the court was not required to issue a
sentencing statement. See I.C. § 35-38-1-1.3. Therefore, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion when it sentenced Morales, and we affirm the sentence
imposed.1
1
To the extent that Morales argues that Anglemyer controls the issue here, we disagree. See Ward v. State, 113
N.E.3d 1242, 1243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (explaining that in 2014, seven years after Anglemyer, the General
Assembly amended INDIANA CODE § 35-38-1-1.3, the statute that requires a trial court to enter a sentencing
statement, and held that “insofar as sentencing statements for felony advisory sentences are concerned, the
statute enacted by our legislature has superseded Anglemyer’s sentencing regime[]”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1078 | December 30, 2019 Page 4 of 5
[8] Affirmed.
May, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1078 | December 30, 2019 Page 5 of 5