Jesse L. Rose v. State of Indiana, 09A05-1205-CR-251

Rose, over a two-year period, sexually assaulted his stepdaughter K.S. while she was under 14; DNA linked Rose to the major DNA profile found on K.S.'s underpants.
He was charged with four counts of class A felony child molesting and three counts of class D felony neglect of a dependent; three neglect counts were dismissed via directed verdict.
The jury convicted Rose on all four class A counts; the court imposed four consecutive 50-year terms, totaling 200 years.
K.S. described multiple incidents (2007–2009) occurring in her home, including vaginal intercourse and deviate conduct, largely while she trusted Rose as a family figure.
The majority affirms the convictions and the 200-year sentence; Riley, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, indicating the sentence should be concurrent under Rule 7(B).
The memorandum decision states it is not a precedent and is not citable except for res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for Counts II–IV	Rose argues Counts II–IV lack sufficient evidence.	Rose asserts insufficient linkage of proof to multiple counts; only Count I is adequately supported.	Sufficient evidence supports Counts II–IV.
Appropriateness of 200-year sentence under Rule 7(B)	Rose contends the sentence is inappropriate given offense nature and personal history.	Rose argues for revising sentence due to intoxication, lack of injury, and lack of other molestations.	Sentence affirmed; 200 years not inappropriate.
Nature of offenses vs. mental illness as mitigating factor	Argues mental illness should mitigate more given circumstances.	Mental illness acknowledged but lacking nexus to crimes; not controlling for sentence.	Court found mental illness weighed as mitigating but not sufficient to revise sentence.
Consecutive vs. concurrent sentencing under Rule 7(B)	Argues for revision due to life-sentence-like impact.	Maintains maximum terms on each count with consecutivity.	Consecutive terms affirmed; no revision under 7(B).
Impact of offense timing and trust position on evaluation of sentence	High culpability due to position of trust and extended period.	Argues sentence should reflect offense under Rule 7(B) with consideration of character.	Court emphasized severe nature and trust violation; no modification.

Jackson v. State, 925 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. 2010) (sufficiency standard; no reweighing by appellate court)
Alvies v. State, 905 N.E.2d 57 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (standard for reviewing evidence; favorable view of evidence)
Reid v. State, 876 N.E.2d 1114 (Ind. 2007) (maximum sentence and nature of offenses related to 7(B))
Thomas-Collins v. State, 868 N.E.2d 557 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (nexus showing mental illness to crime required for mitigation)
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (burden on defendant to persuade 7(B) inappropriate)
Blanche v. State, 690 N.E.2d 709 (Ind. 1998) (waiver for lack of cogent argument in sufficiency claim)