William D. Funderburgh, III v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 27A05-1604-CR-867

Between 2005–2006, William D. Funderburgh III (then ~34) had sexual intercourse with M.M., the eight-year-old daughter of his girlfriend, repeatedly over months.
In November 2013 Funderburgh submitted to a polygraph after initially denying the allegations; the police videotaped pre‑, during, and post‑polygraph interviews in which he gave various explanations and at times blamed the child.
In 2014 the State charged three counts of Class A child molesting; on the day of trial (January 26, 2016) Funderburgh pled guilty to one count (Count 1: sexual intercourse) in exchange for dismissal of the other two; sentencing was left to the court.
At sentencing the court considered the videotape and victim impact statements describing repeated abuse, therapy, and lasting harm; the court found three aggravators (criminal history, victim’s young age, and defendant’s position of care/custody/control) and declined to give weight to proffered mitigators (difficult childhood, mental health) for lack of nexus.
The trial court imposed the maximum 50‑year sentence for a Class A felony; Funderburgh appealed alleging improper consideration of aggravators/mitigators and that the sentence is inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Funderburgh)	Held
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in identifying aggravators/ rejecting mitigators?	Court properly relied on record (video, PSI, victim statements) to find criminal history, victim’s age (tender age), and position of trust as aggravators; mitigators lacked nexus.	Trial court erred: criminal history was only misdemeanors; victim’s age is an element of the offense; no record support for position of trust; childhood and mental health should mitigate.	No abuse of discretion. Criminal history may be weighed; victim’s extreme youth and particularized circumstances may be aggravators; cohabitation/relationship supported position‑of‑trust aggravator; mitigators lacked sufficient nexus.
2. Is the 50‑year sentence inappropriate under App. R. 7(B)?	Sentence is within statutory range and supported by the offense severity and defendant’s character; maximum is justified.	50 years is excessive; request to reduce to advisory 30 years.	Sentence not inappropriate. Court emphasized repeated molestation, tender age, position of trust, late plea, minimizing/blaming victim, and prior record.

Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standard for reviewing sentencing statements and abuse‑of‑discretion framework)
Stewart v. State, 531 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 1988) (victim age as element normally cannot be double‑counted but particularized youth may be aggravating)
Kien v. State, 782 N.E.2d 398 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (trial courts may consider particularized circumstances of a material element like victim age)
Reyes v. State, 909 N.E.2d 1124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (molestation of a very young child held sufficiently extreme to be an aggravator)
Rodriguez v. State, 868 N.E.2d 551 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (position‑of‑trust aggravator applies where adult has authority or cohabitation creates trust with minor)
Hines v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1275 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (affirming position‑of‑trust aggravator under similar facts)
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (standard for Rule 7(B) review and advisory sentence concept)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (purpose and limits of appellate revision for inappropriate sentences)