Timothy L. Gransbury v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 41A05-1606-CR-1422

Timothy L. Gransbury was charged with Class A child molesting and Class D dissemination of matter harmful to a minor for acts against his then five‑year‑old daughter, M.G.; incidents occurred between Oct. 1 and Dec. 25, 2013.
M.G. reported the abuse to her mother Kellie on Jan. 28, 2014; DCS and police were notified and a forensic interview corroborated M.G.’s account that Gransbury performed and instructed oral sex and showed pornographic videos, including of the child’s mother.
Police executed a search warrant on Jan. 30, 2014; two laptops were seized and forensic review found internet activity referencing porn sites and a wiping program but no recovered videos.
At trial the jury heard testimony from M.G., Kellie, the DCS interviewer, and investigators; Gransbury maintained his innocence and argued the mother coached M.G. to fabricate the allegations to limit his parenting time.
The jury convicted; the trial court found mitigators (no criminal history, military service, difficult childhood) and aggravators (victim’s young age, position of trust, victim was his daughter, repeated molestations, use of mother’s porn). Sentenced to 50 years (maximum) for the Class A felony, concurrent with the Class D sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for convictions	The State: M.G.’s testimony and forensic interview support convictions	Gransbury: Only testimonial evidence; no physical evidence of molestation or videos; possible coaching by Kellie	Convictions affirmed — M.G.’s uncorroborated testimony was sufficient and credibility reweighing is for jury
Appropriateness of 50‑year sentence	The State: aggravators justify an aggravated, maximum sentence	Gransbury: military service, lack of record, age, and abuse history mitigate; court overemphasized victim’s age	Sentence affirmed — not inappropriate given repeated molestations, victim’s age, position of trust, and use of mother’s videos

Binkley v. State, 654 N.E.2d 736 (Ind. 1995) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Carter v. State, 754 N.E.2d 877 (Ind. 2001) (a child victim’s uncorroborated testimony can sustain a molestation conviction)
Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (appellate court does not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility on sufficiency review)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (guidance on sentencing review and the advisory sentence concept)
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (appellant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate)
Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 2012) (deferential standard for appellate review of sentences under Rule 7(B))
Sullivan v. State, 836 N.E.2d 1031 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (affirming maximum sentence where victim was defendant’s daughter and molestations were repeated)