MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any May 06 2020, 10:05 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Yvette M. LaPlante Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
LaPlante LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Evansville, Indiana
Tina L. Mann
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Stacy R. Goldman, May 6, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-74
v. Appeal from the Vanderburgh
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Robert J. Pigman,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
82D03-1904-F4-2383
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-74 | May 6, 2020 Page 1 of 9
[1] Stacy Goldman appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court after he pleaded
guilty to two counts of Level 4 Felony Child Solicitation1 and two counts of
Level 4 Felony Sexual Misconduct With a Minor.2 Goldman argues that the
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.
We find that the sentence is not inappropriate, but we also find, sua sponte, that
the two child solicitation convictions violate Indiana’s prohibition against
double jeopardy. Therefore, we affirm the aggregate eight-year sentence, but
we reverse in part and remand with instructions to vacate the conviction and
sentence for one of the two counts of child solicitation.
Facts
[2] On February 6, 2019, K.D., who has high-functioning autism, was fifteen years
old. She had been communicating via Facebook Messenger with a man who
she knew as Ryan King. “Ryan King” was an alias used online by Goldman,
who was twenty-eight years old. Goldman has a variety of intellectual and
emotional disabilities and has never lived completely independently. He
functions at the approximate maturity level of a fifteen-year-old.
[3] K.D., who believed that “King” was nineteen years old, had told him that she
was fifteen and believed that they were “dating.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p.
26. Goldman set up a time and place to meet K.D. to engage in sexual
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-4-6(c).
2
I.C. § 35-42-4-9(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-74 | May 6, 2020 Page 2 of 9
conduct. He also acknowledged that K.D. wanted a baby. He suggested, “this
weekend let’s shoot for getting you pregnant” and said that he would “man up”
and take care of her and the baby. Tr. Ex. Vol. II p. 31. He called himself her
“daddy,” telling her “daddy loves you” and will “take care of you” and to “just
trust your daddy . . . .” Id. at 32.
[4] On February 6, 2019, K.D. told her parents she was going for a walk. She
walked to a nearby church, where she met Goldman for the first time in person.
The two ended up walking down into a ditch, where Goldman laid down a
blanket that he had brought. They took off their clothes, and Goldman
performed oral sex on K.D.; the two then had sexual intercourse.
[5] The next day, K.D. tried to break up with Goldman. He threatened to post
pictures of K.D. that he had taken the previous day so that her family would see
them, saying, “I have screenshots of your boobs and your p**sy so I’m going to
expose it on Facebook right now.” Id. at 10. Goldman also threatened to come
to K.D.’s house to tell her parents what had happened. He also told K.D. that
she could not prove anything because she did not know his real name and that
because (as far as she knew) he was nineteen years old, nothing could happen to
him because their ages were “four years apart” and what they did was legal. Id.
at 8. He also told her “to go kill your f*cking slut self” and “you’re just a little
slut that deserves to disappear from [l]ife hahaha . . . .” Id. at 8-9.
[6] Eventually, K.D. told her school counselor what had happened. The counselor
informed K.D.’s parents and law enforcement. Evansville Police Detective
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-74 | May 6, 2020 Page 3 of 9
Mike Kennedy discovered that “King’s” real name was Stacy Goldman and
that he was twenty-eight years old. Detective Kennedy met with Goldman and
Goldman’s sister on February 20, 2019. Goldman admitted that he had
arranged to meet up with K.D., that he had brought a blanket to have sex on,
that he knew K.D. was only fifteen years old, and that he had threatened and
insulted her after she tried to break up with him.
[7] On April 4, 2019, the State charged Goldman with two counts of Level 4 felony
child solicitation and two counts of Level 4 felony sexual misconduct with a
minor. On September 26, 2019, Goldman pleaded guilty as charged without a
plea agreement. The trial court held a sentencing hearing on November 8,
2019. It found Goldman’s “mental condition” to be a mitigating circumstance
and found his prior criminal history, including multiple probation violations, to
be an aggravating factor. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 17. On December 13,
2019, the trial court imposed concurrent eight-year sentences on all four counts.
Goldman now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Double Jeopardy
[8] First, we are compelled to address, sua sponte, whether Goldman’s convictions
violate Indiana’s prohibition against double jeopardy. Generally, when a
defendant pleads guilty, he waives the right to relief on double jeopardy
grounds because “[a] defendant who enters a plea agreement to achieve an
advantageous position must keep the bargain . . . .” Kunberger v. State, 46
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-74 | May 6, 2020 Page 4 of 9
N.E.3d 966, 971 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). But where, as here, a defendant pleads
guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement, he may be entitled to relief on
this issue. Id.
[9] The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Indiana Constitution provides that “No
person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.” Ind. Const. art. 1, §
14. It is well established that two or more offenses are the “same offense” in
violation of the double jeopardy clause “if, with respect to either the statutory
elements of the challenged crimes or the actual evidence used to convict, the
essential elements of one challenged offense also establish the essential elements
of another challenged offense.” Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32, 49 (Ind.
1999) (emphases in original).
[10] Here, Goldman was convicted of two counts of Level 4 felony child solicitation
and two counts of Level 4 felony sexual conduct with a minor. For child
solicitation, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
Goldman, who was at least twenty-one years old, knowingly or intentionally
solicited K.D., who was between fourteen and sixteen years old, to engage in
sexual conduct; that the solicitation occurred via a computer network; and that
Goldman traveled to meet K.D. I.C. § 35-42-4-6(c). For sexual misconduct
with a minor, the State was required to prove that Goldman, who was at least
twenty-one years old, knowingly or intentionally performed or submitted to
sexual intercourse (first count) and other sexual conduct (second count) with
K.D., who was less than sixteen years of age. I.C. § 35-42-4-9(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-74 | May 6, 2020 Page 5 of 9
[11] There is no issue with respect to the statutory elements of these crimes because
to prove child solicitation, the State was required to prove that Goldman
solicited K.D. to meet to engage in sexual conduct, and to prove sexual
misconduct, the State was required to prove that the sexual conduct actually
occurred.
[12] We do find a violation, however, with respect to the actual evidence used to
support Goldman’s convictions for the two counts of child solicitation. While
he actually engaged in both sexual intercourse and oral sex with K.D.—two
separate acts—there is only evidence that he engaged in one act of solicitation.3
That the one act of solicitation led to two types of sexual conduct supports the
two sexual misconduct with a minor convictions, but only one child solicitation
conviction. See Kunberger, 46 N.E.3d at 970 (holding that to find a violation of
the actual evidence test, there must be a reasonable possibility that the
evidentiary facts used to establish the essential elements of one offense may
have also been used to establish the essential elements of a second offense).
[13] Therefore, the two child solicitation convictions violate the prohibition against
double jeopardy. We reverse in part with instructions that the trial court vacate
the conviction and sentence for one of the child solicitation charges. This will
not affect the aggregate eight-year sentence imposed by the trial court (or our
3
In other words, there is no evidence that Goldman solicited K.D. once to engage in sexual intercourse and a
second, separate time to engage in other sexual conduct.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-74 | May 6, 2020 Page 6 of 9
analysis of the appropriateness of the sentence) because the sentences were
ordered to run concurrently.
II. Appropriateness
[14] Goldman’s sole argument on appeal is that the aggregate eight-year sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character pursuant to
Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). We must “conduct [this] review with substantial
deference and give ‘due consideration’ to the trial court’s decision—since the
‘principal role of [our] review is to attempt to leaven the outliers,’ and not to
achieve a perceived ‘correct’ sentence.” Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292
(Ind. 2014) (internal citations omitted) (quoting Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d
1257, 1259 (Ind. 2013)).
[15] Goldman pleaded guilty to four Level 4 felonies, which we have revised to
three Level 4 felonies. For a Level 4 felony conviction, he faced a sentence of
two to twelve years, with an advisory term of six years imprisonment. Ind.
Code § 35-50-2-5.5. The trial court imposed eight-year terms. The State
concedes that these convictions arose out of a single episode of criminal
conduct. Appellee’s Br. p. 10. As such, had the trial court ordered consecutive
sentences, the maximum term would have been fifteen years imprisonment.
I.C. § 35-50-1-2(d)(3). The trial court imposed concurrent terms, however,
resulting in an aggregate sentence of eight years imprisonment.
[16] With respect to the nature of Goldman’s offenses, he used a fake Facebook
account with a pseudonym to form a relationship with a young woman whom
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-74 | May 6, 2020 Page 7 of 9
he knew to be fifteen years old; she also had autism. He was twenty-eight years
old, but told her he was nineteen. He convinced her to meet him to have sex.
He planned the whole encounter. They had sex and oral sex. The next day,
when K.D. tried to break up with him, he threatened to post graphic pictures of
her online and to come to her house to tell her parents what had happened. He
told her that she could prove nothing because she did not know his real name.
He called her a “slut” and told her to kill herself. Tr. Ex. Vol. p. 8. We do not
find that the nature of these offenses renders the sentence inappropriate.
[17] As to Goldman’s character, he emphasizes that he has many intellectual and
emotional disabilities and states that he functions at the maturity level of a
fifteen-year-old. But he was clearly able to act as a predator online and lure a
young woman into a sexual relationship, including planning out all the details
and threatening and degrading her afterwards. The trial court took Goldman’s
mental capabilities into account when imposing the sentence by finding his
“mental condition” to be a mitigating circumstance. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p.
17. The trial court would have acted reasonably had it imposed a lower
sentence, but we cannot say that the sentence imposed—which is slightly more
than the advisory term of six years, but a good deal less than the maximum
possible fifteen-year term—is inappropriate given Goldman’s mental
disabilities.
[18] We also note that Goldman has a lengthy criminal history that includes
convictions for Level 5 felony battery against a public safety officer, Level 6
felony and Class A misdemeanor theft, Level 6 felony and Class A
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-74 | May 6, 2020 Page 8 of 9
misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor criminal
trespass, Class A misdemeanor battery, Class A misdemeanor conversion, and
Class A misdemeanor false informing. Goldman has been on probation
multiple times, and the State has had to file many petitions to revoke probation
after his behavior failed to comply with the conditions of probation.
[19] Goldman has been afforded leniency by the judicial system many times in the
past. But he has shown an inability or unwillingness to conform his behavior to
the rule of law. And now, his criminal activity has escalated, resulting in
trauma to a vulnerable fifteen-year-old young woman. Under these
circumstances, we find that the eight-year aggregate term imposed by the trial
court is not inappropriate.
[20] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part with
instructions to vacate the conviction and sentence for one of the two counts of
child solicitation.
Bradford, C.J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-74 | May 6, 2020 Page 9 of 9