William Sherman Wilder v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 36A05-1512-CR-2278

Three counts of Class A felony child molesting against William Sherman Wilder for sexual intercourse with a 13‑year‑old victim (A.B.) on three separate occasions between Dec 2013 and Jan 2014.
Victim testified Wilder removed her clothing, had intercourse with her while she was intoxicated or resisting, and suffered significant psychological harm requiring psychiatric care and medication.
Corroborating evidence: Wilder admitted to a relative (Johnson) that he had sex with A.B.; a party witness saw Wilder kissing A.B.; Wilder texted A.B. telling her not to tell police.
While jailed, Wilder attempted to procure videos and drugs to make the victim recant and repeatedly solicited others to fabricate exculpatory evidence.
Wilder waived a jury; the bench convicted him on all three counts, found him to be a habitual offender, and imposed concurrent 35‑year terms enhanced by 30 years for habitual‑offender status, for an aggregate 65‑year sentence.

Issue	State's Argument	Wilder's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to support three Class A child‑molesting convictions	A.B.’s testimony, combined with admissions, witness observations, and texts, is sufficient	Convictions rest solely on A.B.’s inconsistent testimony and are therefore insufficient	Affirmed; testimony plus corroborating evidence satisfied the standard and incredible‑dubiosity did not apply
Appropriateness of aggregate 65‑year sentence under Rule 7(B)	Sentence justified by repeated offenses, victim trauma, Wilder’s criminal history, and post‑arrest conduct to undermine victim	Sentence excessive; asks reduction to 40 years	Affirmed; appellate review found sentence not inappropriate given offense nature and offender’s character

Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039 (Ind. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency and limits of incredible‑dubiosity rule)
Love v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806 (Ind. 2002) (incredible‑dubiosity rule explanation)
Rose v. State, 36 N.E.3d 1055 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (victim’s uncorroborated testimony can sustain conviction)
Carter v. State, 44 N.E.3d 47 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (circumstantial evidence can prevent invocation of incredible‑dubiosity)
Leggs v. State, 966 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (presumption that judge applies law when weighing credibility)
Remy v. State, 17 N.E.3d 396 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (Appellate Rule 7(B) focuses on aggregate sentence and outliers)
Bratcher v. State, 999 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (factors relevant to 7(B) review include culpability, harm, and offender character)
Baber v. State, 870 N.E.2d 487 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (finder of fact best positioned to resolve timing/location discrepancies)
Newsome v. State, 686 N.E.2d 868 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (inconsistent prior statements do not make trial testimony inherently improbable)