Pierce v. State, 949 N.E.2d 349

Pierce was convicted by a jury of four counts of child molesting (three Class A felonies, one Class C), and adjudicated a repeat sexual offender.
The trial court sentenced Pierce to 124 years total, with ten years suspended to probation, and added a ten-year repeat offender enhancement; sentences were consecutive.
Pierce abused J.W., a child in Pierce’s partner’s home, starting when she was ten and continuing roughly a year.
The State alleged a prior unrelated felony sex offense (1999) to qualify Pierce as a repeat sexual offender under Indiana law.
The Court of Appeals partially affirmed, remanding to attach the ten-year repeat-offender term to one Class A sentence for a total of 134 years; Pierce sought transfer.
The Indiana Supreme Court, granting transfer, revised the aggregate sentence to 80 years, with specific reallocation of terms and concurrency rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the aggregate sentence is inappropriate	Pierce contends total term is excessive under Rule 7(B).	State argues the aggregate is justified by aggravating factors and consecutive structure.	Sentence revised to 80 years; aggregate term appropriate under 7(B) analysis.
Whether counts should be consecutive or concurrent	Counts should have different handling due to one victim and comparable cases.	Trial court properly weighed aggravators and ordered some consecutive sentences.	Counts II–IV served concurrently; Count I enhanced then served consecutively, forming the 80-year total.
Whether the repeat-offender enhancement must run consecutively	Enhancement should run consecutively to the underlying offenses.	Enhancement can be attached to a single term; the trial court’s approach was permissible.	Enhancement attached to Count I term; total revised to 80 years.
Whether the nature of the offense supports enhanced sentencing	Aggravating factors warrant maximizing sentences due to trust position and years of abuse.	While aggravated, not every count needed enhancement or strict consecutivity.	Aggravation found sufficient to justify some enhancement; not to all four counts.
Whether remand should include further proceedings	Remand may require further hearings to implement precise adjustments.	Remand with amended sentencing order suffices.	Remand to issue amended sentencing order consistent with opinion; no new hearing necessary.

Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (focus on aggregate sentence rather than individual counts)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (independent appellate review of sentencing under 7(B))
Walker v. State, 747 N.E.2d 536 (Ind. 2001) (one victim, multiple molestations; alters consecutive sentences)
Monroe v. State, 886 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2008) (time distance of prior offenses affects severity)
Sanchez v. State, 938 N.E.2d 720 (Ind. 2010) (recognizes impact of multiple factors on consecutive sentences)
Harris v. State, 897 N.E.2d 927 (Ind. 2008) (concurrent vs. consecutive sentencing considerations in child molestation)