MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 20 2020, 10:28 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Brooklyn, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Tina L. Mann
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Rodney D. Jacobs, Jr., March 20, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-2504
v. Appeal from the Putman Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Matthew L.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Headley, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
67C01-1805-F4-116
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2504 | March 20, 2020 Page 1 of 6
[1] Rodney D. Jacobs, Jr. pleaded guilty to sexual misconduct with a minor, a
Level 4 felony. The trial court sentenced him to ten years, with five years
executed at the Indiana Department of Correction and five years suspended to
probation. On appeal, Jacobs argues that the trial court abused its discretion in
sentencing him and that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of
the offense and his character.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] From November 2017 until March 2018, Jacobs, a forty-year-old man, engaged
in multiple acts of sexual intercourse, oral sex, digital penetration, and
masturbation with fourteen-year-old J.M. Jacobs was a trusted friend of J.M.’s
family for over four years. He often slept with J.M. when her parents were not
at home. He also bought gifts for J.M. and visited her at school. They acted like
they were a couple when in public, and this prompted an investigation by the
Indiana Department of Child Services.
[4] On May 23, 2018, the State charged Jacobs with one count of sexual
misconduct with a minor, a Level 4 felony. On September 26, 2019, Jacobs
pleaded guilty to the charged crime pursuant to a plea agreement that capped
the executed time at six years. On October 1, 2019, the trial court sentenced
Jacobs to ten years, with five years executed and five years suspended to
probation. Jacobs now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2504 | March 20, 2020 Page 2 of 6
Discussion & Decision
1. Abuse of Discretion
[5] Jacobs argues that the trial court abused its discretion by omitting two
mitigating circumstances advanced at sentencing, namely, he was molested as a
child and he was unlikely to reoffend because he was in therapy.
[6] Sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and are
reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d
482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218. An abuse of discretion
occurs if 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 be found to have
abused its discretion by (1) failing to enter a sentencing statement; (2) entering a
sentencing statement that includes reasons not supported by the record; (3)
entering a sentencing statement that omits reasons clearly supported by the
record and advanced for consideration; or (4) entering a sentencing statement
that includes reasons that are improper as a matter of law. Id. at 490-91. When
claiming that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating circumstance,
it is the defendant’s burden to establish that the mitigating evidence is both
significant and clearly supported by the record. Id. at 493.
[7] Because a court may impose any sentence authorized by statute “regardless of
the presence or absence of aggravating circumstances or mitigating
circumstances,” a trial court is no longer obligated to weigh aggravating and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2504 | March 20, 2020 Page 3 of 6
mitigating factors against each other when imposing a sentence. Id. at 488. The
trial court must, however, enter a statement including reasonably detailed
reasons or circumstances for imposing a particular sentence. Id at 490. If the
trial court finds the existence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, it
must give a “statement of the court’s reasons for selecting the sentence that it
imposes.” Ind. Code § 35-38-1-3. On review, we may examine both the written
and oral sentencing statements to discern the findings of the trial court. See
Vaughn v. State, 13 N.E.3d 873, 890 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.
[8] In this case, the trial court entered a detailed, thoughtful oral sentencing
statement followed by a written sentencing statement. It is apparent to us that
the trial court considered each of the proffered mitigating circumstances that
Jacobs now contends were omitted. Specifically, while the trial court
acknowledged that Jacobs had already been in therapy, this does not mean
necessarily that Jacobs was unlikely to reoffend. In fact, the probation officer
testified that sex offenders are often at a higher risk to reoffend. Furthermore,
the trial court considered and expressly rejected the proffered mitigator that the
trial court should be more lenient to Jacobs because Jacobs himself was
molested when he was young. The trial court noted that Jacobs harmed the
victim even though he personally “knew the pain of a molestation.” Transcript
at 55.
[9] Jacobs has failed to establish an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we turn to his
claim that the ten-year sentence, with five years executed at the Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2504 | March 20, 2020 Page 4 of 6
Department of Correction and five years suspended to probation, was
inappropriate in light of his character and nature of the offense.
2. Inappropriate Sentence
[10] Although the trial court may have acted within its lawful discretion in imposing
a sentence, Article 7, Sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorize
independent appellate review and revision of a sentence imposed by the trial
court. Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 491. This appellate authority is implemented
through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that a court “may revise a
sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s
decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature
of the offense and the character of the offender.” Id. Nevertheless, “we must
and should exercise deference to a trial court’s sentencing decision, both
because Rule 7(B) requires us to give ‘due consideration’ to that decision and
because we understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings
to its sentencing decisions.” Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d 858, 866 (Ind. Ct. App.
2007). Jacobs bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is
inappropriate. See Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
[11] In order to assess the appropriateness of a sentence, we start with the statutory
range established for the classification of the relevant offense. Here, Jacobs
pleaded guilty to a Level 4 felony. The sentencing range for a Level 4 felony is
two years to twelve years, with the advisory sentence being six years. Ind. Code
§ 35-50-2-5.5. Jacobs received five years executed followed by five years on
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2504 | March 20, 2020 Page 5 of 6
probation. Thus, not only was his sentence well below the maximum he could
have received, but the executed portion was also below the agreed six-year cap.
[12] Regarding the nature of the offense, we find Jacobs’s actions particularly
egregious. For over five months, Jacobs—an adult man in his forties—subjected
a fourteen-year-old minor to sexual intercourse, oral sex, masturbation, and
digital penetration. The misconduct only stopped because of the involvement of
Department of Child Services; otherwise, it is not clear how long Jacobs would
have continued abusing J.M. While we acknowledge that Jacobs does not have
an extensive criminal history, the ongoing victimization reflects poorly on his
character. He groomed J.M. with gifts and attention that helped him achieve
his sexual gratification. Further, Jacobs was a trusted friend of the family, who
used his position to get closer to J.M. Not only did he sleep with J.M. when her
parents were not there, but he also visited her at school. The nature of the
offense and Jacobs’s character do not warrant the revision of his sentence.
[13] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Jacobs’s sentence is not inappropriate
in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
[14] Judgment affirmed.
Robb, J. and Bradford, C.J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2504 | March 20, 2020 Page 6 of 6