Fredrick Ulysses Rogers v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 82A01-1708-CR-1888

In 2016 Rogers (age 42 at sentencing) lived with his girlfriend K.B. and her 12‑year‑old daughter S.B.; over ~7–8 months Rogers repeatedly engaged in sexual acts with S.B., some acts filmed or facilitated by K.B.
Acts included forcing S.B. to masturbate Rogers, oral sex, making S.B. watch porn (including recordings of herself), and other sexual conduct; K.B. participated out of fear of Rogers and because both used methamphetamine and marijuana.
The State charged Rogers with 12 counts: three Level 1 child molesting counts, two Level 4 child molesting counts, one Level 5 child exploitation count, four Level 6 counts for performing sexual conduct in the presence of a minor, and two Level 6 counts for dissemination of matter harmful to minors.
Rogers pleaded guilty to all counts on June 30, 2017; the probable cause affidavit was incorporated as the factual basis. He admitted the offenses and apologized at sentencing, claiming addiction and asserting K.B. was the instigator.
At sentencing the trial court considered Rogers’s criminal history (two prior felonies, multiple misdemeanors), risk to reoffend, the duration and egregiousness of abuse, and that Rogers violated a position of trust; it imposed concurrent sentences resulting in an executed 40‑year term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rogers’s 40‑year sentence is inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)	State: Sentence is appropriate given the prolonged, egregious abuse, participation of the victim’s mother, and Rogers’s criminal history and risk to reoffend	Rogers: Sentence is excessive; offenses were not more egregious than typical statutory offenses, K.B. participated, and Rogers accepted responsibility and pleaded guilty to all counts	Court affirmed: sentence not inappropriate in light of nature of offense and offender’s character

Brown v. State, 52 N.E.3d 945 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (appellate review under Rule 7(B) aims to leaven outliers rather than correct every sentence)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (principle that appellate review should not substitute its judgment for trial court but focus on outliers)
Satterfield v. State, 33 N.E.3d 344 (Ind. 2015) (appellate review of sentencing is independent but gives substantial deference to trial court)
Barker v. State, 994 N.E.2d 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (7(B) review asks whether a sentence is inappropriate, not whether another sentence might be better)
Kunberger v. State, 46 N.E.3d 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (advisory sentence discussed as legislative starting point)
Croy v. State, 953 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (nature of the offense and character of the offender defined for sentencing review)