MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jan 31 2017, 8:58 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Christopher P. Phillips Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Phillips Law Office P.C. Attorney General
Monticello, Indiana
Caryn N. Szyper
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Chad T.B. Steiner, January 31, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
79A05-1606-CR-1544
v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Randy J. Williams,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
79D01-1601-F5-6
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1606-CR-1544 | January 31, 2017 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary
[1] Chad T.B. Steiner appeals his aggregate four-year sentence imposed following
his guilty plea to level 5 felony child exploitation and level 6 felony child
pornography. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing
him by failing to find certain mitigating factors and finding invalid aggravating
factors. Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In January 2016, police executed a search warrant on Steiner’s home and seized
his computer. On Steiner’s computer, police found pornographic photographs
and videos of children. One video, labeled “km8b.wmv,” depicted a female girl
under the age of eighteen performing oral sex on an adult male penis and
exposing her genitals. Tr. at 14. The girl was later identified by law
enforcement officials in Washington State. Steiner also had a video that
depicted a prepubescent female of about ten years old exposing her breasts and
vagina.
[3] In addition, police found that between January 14, 2015, and November 27,
2015, Steiner had exchanged emails containing child pornography or passwords
to galleries with child pornography with at least twenty-five different email
addresses. One of these includes a July 11, 2015, email exchange between
Steiner and Cliff Clark, in which they discussed trading pictures of young
teenage girls. Steiner sent Clark pictures of M.S. and claimed that he had
previously dated M.S.’s mother. Police interviewed M.S., and she told them
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1606-CR-1544 | January 31, 2017 Page 2 of 8
that the nude photographs that Steiner claimed depicted her did not actually
depict her. Instead, Steiner had taken pictures from M.S.’s Facebook account
and paired her Facebook photos with nude photos of other females who were
similar in size, shape, age, and hair color. On December 3, 2015, Steiner
emailed a photograph of a different female child performing oral sex on an
adult male to a Hotmail email address. The child victim in the photograph was
later identified by officials in Germany.
[4] Steiner created photographic galleries on the website Image Source. The
galleries were identified as “teens” and “lovely teens” in sections characterized
as “nudity.” Id. at 29. One of the galleries included a photograph of M.S.
along with Steiner’s comment that “you should see her naked.” Id. at 29. The
two galleries had a total of ninety-five photographs. Steiner’s first account on
Image Source was eventually locked out because it contained child
pornography. Steiner created a second account, but it was locked out for
“reposting.” Id. at 28. Steiner also had an account at a website called
primejailbait.com, which he created in January 2013. Steiner uploaded a total
of 108 photographs to the account, which has received over 40,000 views.
Many of the 108 images on the primejailbait.com account were of M.S., along
with two other unidentified girls.
[5] The State charged Steiner with level 5 felony child exploitation and 2 counts of
level 6 felony possession of child pornography. Pursuant to a plea agreement,
Steiner pled guilty to the level 5 felony count and one of the level 6 felony
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1606-CR-1544 | January 31, 2017 Page 3 of 8
counts, the latter of which was based on the video labeled km8b.wmv. The
State dismissed the remaining count.
[6] At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found that Steiner’s guilty plea,
acceptance of responsibility, absence of criminal history, and support of family
and friends were mitigating factors. As for aggravating factors, the trial court
found that there were multiple victims, that one of the victims recommended an
aggravated sentence, and that Steiner had been engaging in child pornography
and exploitation “starting in 2013 [so] it would appear to the court that this has
been going on for some time, so it is not as if you were caught the first time that
you became involved in this particular – in actions given [sic] rise to these
particular offenses.” Id. at 43. The trial court found that the aggravating factors
outweighed the mitigating factors and sentenced Steiner to concurrent terms of
four years for the level 5 felony conviction and one and a half years for the level
6 felony conviction, with three years executed and one year suspended. This
appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Steiner argues that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him by
failing to find certain mitigating factors and by finding invalid aggravating
factors.1 We note that sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of
1
Steiner mentions the standard of appellate review for an inappropriate sentence claim. See Ind. Appellate
Rule 7(B) (“The 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.”). However, he does not develop an argument to support an inappropriate
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1606-CR-1544 | January 31, 2017 Page 4 of 8
the trial court. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on
reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218. 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
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. at 491. A trial court abuses its discretion
during sentencing by: (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
sentencing statement that includes reasons that are improper as a matter of law.
Id. at 490-91.
[8] Steiner asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to find that his
remorse and his work history were mitigating factors. We observe that
the trial court is not obligated to accept the defendant’s argument
as to what constitutes a mitigating factor, and a trial court is not
required to give the same weight to proffered mitigating factors as
does a defendant. A trial court does not err in failing to find a
mitigating factor where that claim is highly disputable in nature,
weight, or significance. An allegation that a trial court abused its
discretion by failing to identify or find a mitigating factor requires
the defendant on appeal to establish that the mitigating evidence
is significant and clearly supported by the record.
sentence claim, and therefore we conclude that he has waived any such claim. See Sandleben v. State, 29
N.E.3d 126, 136 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (concluding that Sandleben waived inappropriate sentence argument
by failing to present cogent argument on that issue), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1606-CR-1544 | January 31, 2017 Page 5 of 8
Healey v. State, 969 N.E.2d 607, 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citations omitted),
trans. denied.
[9] As for remorse, our review of the sentencing transcript shows that when
Steiner’s counsel proffered mitigating factors he referred to Steiner’s acceptance
of responsibility and his remorse interchangeably. The State asserts that “the
trial court’s finding of Steiner’s acceptance of responsibility, as requested by the
defense, is an implicit acknowledgement of Steiner’s remorse as mitigating.”
Appellee’s Br. at 13. We agree. Furthermore, we note that even if the trial
court declined to find that remorse was a mitigating factor, “a trial court’s
determination of a defendant’s remorse is similar to its determination of
credibility: without evidence of some impermissible consideration by the trial
court, we accept its decision.” Sandleben v. State, 29 N.E.3d 126, 136 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2015), trans. denied. Thus, the trial court was free to find that Steiner’s
expression of remorse lacked credibility.
[10] As for Steiner’s work history, he asserts that he worked at the same place for
twenty years. At the sentencing hearing, his counsel did make that assertion,
but there is nothing in the record to support it. The only evidence of Steiner’s
work history is found in the presentence investigation report (“PSI”), which
shows that he told the probation officer that he had been employed as a laborer
at Fairfield in Lafayette. Appellant’s App. Vol. IV at 8. Steiner has failed to
establish that the employment evidence is both significant and clearly supported
by the record. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
failing to find remorse and work history as mitigating factors. See Espinoza v.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1606-CR-1544 | January 31, 2017 Page 6 of 8
State, 859 N.E.2d 375, 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (concluding that trial court did
not abuse its discretion by declining to find that work history was a mitigating
factor where employment evidence consisted of statement in PSI that Espinoza
was self-employed doing construction work).
[11] We now turn to aggravating factors. Steiner contends that two aggravating
factors found by the trial court were improper: that his actions occurred over a
period of time and that there were multiple victims. He asserts that these
circumstances are inherently included in the charges and therefore should not
be considered aggravating factors. He also argues that the time period, from
June 26, 2015, to January 7, 2016, as alleged in the charging information for
child exploitation, is not so long as to support the period of time as a valid
aggravator.
[12] Steiner ignores the evidence in the record, which shows that beginning on
January 14, 2015, he had email exchanges involving the sharing of child
pornography with twenty-five different email addresses. He also had an
account and gallery at primejailbait.com, which he created in January of 2013,
well before his arrest for the current offenses. He posted 108 photographs in
that gallery, and it received over 40,000 views. Likewise, he had galleries at
Image Source containing a total of ninety-five photographs. Steiner pled guilty
to possessing a video depicting the victim who was identified by Washington
law enforcement, but he had other videos depicting different victims. In
addition, he had a photograph of another young female victim, identified by
officials in Germany, performing oral sex on an adult male, which Steiner sent
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1606-CR-1544 | January 31, 2017 Page 7 of 8
to a Hotmail email address on December 2, 2015. Thus, he engaged in the
prohibited conduct over many years, and it has involved many different victims.
We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding those
aggravating factors. Therefore, we affirm Steiner’s sentence.
[13] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1606-CR-1544 | January 31, 2017 Page 8 of 8