Armando M. Bruno v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
14A01-1606-CR-1530
Ind. Ct. App.May 12, 2017Background
- Defendant Armando M. Bruno, a pastor and family friend, was accused and tried for repeatedly molesting a child (D.A.) beginning when the child was six and continuing in later years; acts included fondling and anal penetration.
- D.A. reported the abuse to his father first years earlier; Bruno denied it then and later convinced the father the child was "possessed." In 2014 D.A. disclosed ongoing abuse; Bruno later admitted to touching D.A. and was recorded apologizing.
- Police interviewed Bruno at the station with a Spanish interpreter; he signed an English waiver form and gave a recorded statement admitting fondling and some sexual conduct; he was arrested afterward.
- Indictment charged multiple counts; jury convicted Bruno of two Class A and two Class C child-molesting counts.
- At sentencing the court found aggravators (abuse of trust, prolonged course of abuse, significant harm) and imposed consecutive enhanced sentences on the two Class A convictions for an aggregate term of 80 years; the court also ordered $5,000 restitution to the State for translation/transcription costs.
- On appeal Bruno challenged admission of his statement (Miranda/translation), exclusion of proffered evidence under the Rape Shield Rule, sufficiency for Class A convictions, sentencing (abuse of discretion and appropriateness), and the restitution order.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Bruno's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of custodial statement (Miranda waiver/translation) | Statement was knowingly and voluntarily waived; interpreter adequately advised rights and Bruno signed waiver | Interpreter mistranslated Miranda ("could" vs "can and will") and English waiver form meant he could not knowingly waive; waiver invalid | Admissible — waiver found knowing, voluntary, intelligent under totality of circumstances; English form and minor translation variance not fatal |
| Exclusion of evidence under Rape Shield (proof someone else committed abuse) | Evidence barred by Rule 412; defendant offered no specific instances or admissible foundation showing grandfather as source | Wanted to admit testimony/allegations that maternal grandfather molested other family members to show alternative perpetrator | Exclusion affirmed — proffered evidence was hearsay, non-specific, remote, and not within Rule 412(b)(1)(A) exception; any error harmless |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Class A (deviate sexual conduct — anal penetration) | Victim testimony, corroborating admissions, and medical/behavioral evidence supported convictions | Argued victim testimony lacked specificity and was incredible; Bruno denied anal intercourse | Sufficient — jury reasonably credited victim; incredible-dubiosity rule not triggered |
| Sentencing: aggravators and consecutive terms (abuse of discretion) | Aggravators (abuse of trust, prolonged abuse, significant harm) supported enhanced, consecutive sentences because crimes occurred across distinct time periods | Argued harm was not greater than offense elements and court failed to explain need for consecutive rather than concurrent sentences | No abuse of discretion — record supports aggravators and rationale for consecutive sentences (distinct time periods); reasons apparent in record |
| Sentence appropriateness under App. R. 7(B) | Sentence appropriate given severity, repeated molestation, breach of trust, and harm | Argued 80-year aggregate sentence disproportionate to offense/character | Sentence not inappropriate — appellate court defers to trial court; defendant failed to show sentence is an outlier |
| Restitution to State ($5,000 for translation/transcription) | State sought reimbursement for its investigative expenses and presented invoices | Argued restitution improper because statute limits restitution to victims or victims' families | Reversed — restitution to State improper absent showing State is a victim; investigative costs not compensable under the restitution statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Hicks v. State, 5 N.E.3d 424 (Ind. 2014) (standards for reviewing admissibility and Miranda waiver issues)
- Ringo v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1209 (Ind. 2000) (written waiver as evidence of Miranda waiver; totality-of-circumstances test)
- Myers v. State, 510 N.E.2d 1360 (Ind. 1987) (minor variance in Miranda wording not necessarily fatal)
- Carter v. State, 730 N.E.2d 155 (Ind. 2000) (express written waiver not required to establish Miranda waiver)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for appellate review of sentencing and when remand is required)
- Horton v. State, 949 N.E.2d 346 (Ind. 2011) (consecutive sentences may be imposed for distinct criminal activity directed at the same victim)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (App. R. 7(B) review for sentence appropriateness)
- Iltzsch v. State, 981 N.E.2d 55 (Ind. 2013) (purpose and limits of restitution; restitution primarily compensates victims)