Thomas W. Julian v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
84A01-1701-CR-103
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 7, 2017Background
- In 2015 a flash drive found at a gas station contained images and recordings of nude children and sexual acts; a submitter recognized Julian’s voice and his home interior on the media.
- Indiana charged Julian with numerous child-sex offenses across four cause numbers; under a plea agreement he pled guilty to two Level 1 child-molesting counts, two Class C child-molesting counts, and one Level 5 child-exploitation count; remaining counts were dismissed.
- The parties agreed the aggregate sentence would be between 20 and 60 years; the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 55 years.
- Offenses involved multiple victims over several years (2007–2015), including sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old and an 11–12-year-old, fondling of children under 14 and as young as six, and production/possession of sexual images.
- The trial court emphasized aggravators: multiple victims, position of trust, and labeled Julian a “serial child molester.” The court gave some mitigating weight to lack of significant criminal history and Julian’s guilty plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Julian’s 55-year sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | State: sentence within agreed cap and supported by gravity of offenses and offender’s character | Julian: sentence is inappropriate given his age/health (effectively life), guilty plea, limited criminal history, military service, and claimed mental disorder | Affirmed: sentence not inappropriate; defendant failed to carry burden to show revision warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (appellate review under Rule 7(B) described)
- Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111 (Ind. 2015) (deference to trial court sentencing decisions; appellate revision requires compelling evidence)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence inappropriate)
- Sensback v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1160 (Ind. 1999) (guilty pleas generally conserve resources and spare victims trauma)
- Haggard v. State, 771 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (guilty plea can show acceptance of responsibility)
- Trueblood v. State, 715 N.E.2d 1242 (Ind. 1999) (weight of guilty plea as mitigation is fact-sensitive)
- Wells v. State, 836 N.E.2d 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (guilty plea not significant mitigation where plea is pragmatic or yields substantial benefit)
- Corralez v. State, 815 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (mental-health history is mitigating only when nexus to the crime is shown)