Jose Luis Aguilar-Robles v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 48A04-1608-CR-1875

Defendant Jose Luis Aguilar-Robles, age 26 at time of offenses, was convicted after a bench trial of five counts of Class A child molesting and three counts of Class B incest for sexual acts with his then seven‑year‑old daughter occurring on three separate occasions in 2010.
Acts included forcible vaginal intercourse and digital contact; the child testified she experienced pain, told him to stop, and was threatened not to tell her mother.
Charges filed in December 2014; trial held July 2016; defendant testified and maintained innocence at trial and sentencing.
At sentencing the trial court found no mitigating factors and identified as aggravators: defendant’s role as primary caregiver/position of trust, the nature and circumstances of the crimes (including threats), lack of remorse, and limited prior criminal history; it imposed 40 years on each Class A count (with Counts I–III consecutive) for an aggregate 120 years.
On appeal defendant challenged the use of threats and lack of remorse as aggravators and argued the aggregate sentence was inappropriate; the State conceded lack of remorse was improperly considered.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the aggregate 120‑year sentence but remanded to vacate the three incest convictions because they duplicated the child‑molesting convictions (double jeopardy).

Issue	State's Argument	Aguilar‑Robles' Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by treating threats and lack of remorse as aggravators	Threats and nature/circumstances and position of trust were supported by record; lack of remorse was urged but the State later conceded it was improper here	Threat of victim and lack of remorse were unsupported or improper because he maintained innocence	Court: consideration of threats (as part of nature/circumstances and breach of trust) was proper; lack of remorse was improper but harmless because other valid aggravators supported the sentence (no remand)
Whether aggregate 120‑year sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B)	Sentence appropriate given multiple forcible acts, victim age, parent as primary caregiver, and resulting harm	Aggregate 120 years excessive; counts involved same victim and occurred over a short period; requested concurrent sentences/advisory term	Court: aggregate sentence not inappropriate — enhancement and consecutive terms for separate acts against same child justified; affirmed
Whether convictions for incest must be vacated due to double jeopardy	State used same evidence for child molesting and incest; merger/ concurrent sentences do not cure double jeopardy after entry of convictions	Defendant argued double jeopardy — convictions duplicative	Court: double jeopardy violation — vacate the less severe incest convictions and remand for entry of that relief

Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (2007) (standards for sentencing‑statement review and abuse of discretion)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (2008) (Rule 7(B) principles; focus on aggregate sentence)
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence inappropriate under Rule 7(B))
Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (1999) (vacate the conviction with lesser penalty when double jeopardy invalidates multiple convictions)
Gregory v. State, 885 N.E.2d 697 (2008) (concurrent sentences or merger cannot cure double jeopardy after convictions entered)
Schaefer v. State, 750 N.E.2d 787 (2001) (dual convictions for overlapping sexual offenses can violate double jeopardy when based on same facts)
Roberts v. State, 712 N.E.2d 23 (1999) (rape and child molesting convictions based on single act violate double jeopardy)