Willie Edward Williams v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 48A02-1608-CR-2016

Defendant Willie Edward Williams (age 42) was accused of digitally penetrating his 13‑year‑old cousin T.C. while visiting her home on November 11, 2015; T.C. fled crying to a neighboring party.
T.C. later disclosed the incident to staff at the Youth Opportunity Center in January 2016; DCS investigated and a forensic interview occurred.
The State charged Williams with two counts of child molesting (Level 1 and Level 4) and alleged he was a habitual offender.
At a bench trial four witnesses testified: T.C., her mother M.C., neighbor K.N., and YOC manager Shelby Parker; testimony contained timing inconsistencies and differed from some DCS reports.
The trial court found Williams guilty on both counts; he admitted habitual offender status and received an aggregate executed sentence of 45 years.
On appeal the court reviewed sufficiency of the evidence and raised sua sponte whether convicting on both Level 1 and Level 4 child molesting violated double jeopardy.

Issue	State's Argument	Williams' Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for convictions	Testimony and corroborating circumstantial evidence supported conviction beyond a reasonable doubt	T.C.’s testimony was incredibly dubious and contradicted DCS reports; therefore insufficient	Affirmed — evidence sufficient; incredible‑dubiosity rule inapplicable because multiple witnesses and circumstantial corroboration existed
Double jeopardy: convictions for both Level 1 and Level 4 child molesting	The State relied on different evidence or theories to support each count (implicit)	Conviction on both a greater and its inherent lesser‑included offense for the same act violates double jeopardy	Reversed in part — Level 4 conviction vacated as it is a lesser‑included offense of the Level 1 conviction; no resentencing needed due to concurrent sentences and habitual‑offender enhancement

Sharp v. State, 42 N.E.3d 512 (Ind. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review)
Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749 (Ind. 2015) (defines requirements for applying the incredible‑dubiosity rule)
Wentz v. State, 766 N.E.2d 351 (Ind. 2002) (double jeopardy bars conviction for an offense and its lesser included offense)
Smith v. State, 881 N.E.2d 1040 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (defines inherently lesser‑included offense)
Bush v. State, 772 N.E.2d 1020 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (same; cannot commit greater without first committing lesser)
Zachary v. State, 469 N.E.2d 744 (Ind. 1984) (lesser‑included offense analysis)
Wilhelmus v. State, 824 N.E.2d 405 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (evidence showing crimes are independent removes lesser‑included status)
Ingram v. State, 718 N.E.2d 379 (Ind. 1999) (principles on independent crimes and inclusion)
Iddings v. State, 772 N.E.2d 1006 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (fact‑specific inquiry required to determine included offenses)