Francisco Esparza-Hernandez v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A03-1605-CR-1095
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- Between 2008–2013 Hernandez, the victim’s stepfather, repeatedly molested his stepdaughter I.O., beginning when she was eight, including digital/penile contact and anal penetration on multiple occasions both before and after she turned fourteen.
- Victim disclosed the abuse to her mother (D.E.) twice; D.E. initially did not believe her until overhearing a recorded phone call in which Hernandez admitted sexual contact.
- Hernandez was arrested in Elkhart, Indiana in November 2014 after returning from Texas; the State charged him with Class A child molesting and Class B sexual misconduct with a minor.
- Hernandez pled guilty days before trial, admitting to anal sex with I.O. between January 2012 and October 2013, both before and after she turned fourteen.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed consecutive terms: 45 years (Class A) and 15 years (Class B), for an aggregate executed sentence of 60 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 60-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B) | Sentence is appropriate given severity, abuse of trust, and aggravating factors | Hernandez argued sentence is inappropriate given minimal criminal history and contended consecutive terms were excessive | Court affirmed: sentence not inappropriate in light of offense nature and defendant character |
Key Cases Cited
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence inappropriate)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (aggregate length and how served are central to review under Rule 7(B))
- Abbott v. State, 961 N.E.2d 1016 (Ind. 2012) (advisory sentence as legislative starting point)
- Sanchez v. State, 891 N.E.2d 174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (illegal reentry reflects disregard for law and bears on character)
- Gross v. State, 22 N.E.3d 863 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (trial court discretion on consecutive sentences and requirement to state reasons)
- Gilliam v. State, 901 N.E.2d 72 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (single aggravator can justify consecutive sentences)
- Smith v. State, 889 N.E.2d 261 (Ind. 2008) (repeated molestation and violation of trust can support consecutive sentences totaling sixty years)