Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2272 | April 8, 2019 Page 1 of 10

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Jennifer A. Joas

Madison, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Taylor C. Byrley

Angela Sanchez

Deputy Attorneys General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Versal W. Strunk,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 8, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2272

Appeal from the 

Ripley Circuit Court

The Honorable 

Ryan J. King, Judge

Trial Court Cause No. 

69C01-1710-F1-11 

Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2272 | April 8, 2019 Page 2 of 10

[1] Versal W. Strunk (“Strunk”) pleaded guilty to child molesting1 as a Level 1 

felony and was sentenced to fifty years executed and determined to be a credit 

restricted felon. Strunk appeals and raises the following issue for our review: 

whether his fifty-year executed sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of 

the offense and the character of the offender.

[2] We vacate and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Strunk was born in 1986. Tr. Vol. 2 at 13. Strunk’s wife babysat children in the 

couple’s residence in Osgood, Ripley County, Indiana. Appellant’s App. Vol. II

at 49. E.W. and L.W. were two of the children that Strunk’s wife watched, and 

E.W. and L.W. would sometimes stay overnight at Strunk’s residence when 

their mother had to work early the next morning. Id. at 13, 64. During the 

time that Strunk’s wife watched E.W. and L.W., Strunk engaged in sexual 

conduct with them. Id. at 49-50, 63-68. The molestation began when Strunk 

and his wife first began watching the children and continued until the police 

began their investigation. Id. at 63. 

[4] On September 26, 2017, L.W., who was seven years old at the time, told her 

mother that Strunk had “touched” her. Id. at 12. The children’s mother took 

them to the police department where they were interviewed. During her 

 

1

See Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2272 | April 8, 2019 Page 3 of 10

interview, L.W. told the police that Strunk would give her a bath and touch her 

everywhere on her body with his hands. Id. at 63. L.W. stated that he had 

given her a bath more than one time and stated that is was “not okay” for him 

to touch her “bad body parts.” Id. L.W. further stated that Strunk’s hands 

would go “inside the folds of her vagina and between the cheeks of her butt”

when he gave her a bath. Id. L.W. told the police that Strunk would wake up 

her brother, E.W., in the middle of the night to go into the bathroom to play 

cards. Id. L.W. indicated that when E.W. had to use the toilet, Strunk would 

sit on the toilet with his clothes off and have E.W. urinate between Strunk’s

legs. Id. Strunk told L.W. that she had to “keep it a secret” or he “would go to 

jail.” Id. L.W. told the police that “if mommy wouldn’t [have] known about it, 

it would have kept going.” Id.

[5] The police also interviewed E.W., who was eight years old at the time, and in 

the interview, E.W. referred to Strunk as “uncle” although they are not related. 

Id. E.W. indicated that Strunk would wake him up and take him to the 

bathroom to “play slap jack and if you lose you have to drink.” Id. at 64. E.W. 

stated that Strunk would make him urinate between Strunk’s legs “all the time.”

Id. E.W. said that Strunk would put “sex.com” on his phone when E.W. was 

urinating between his legs and that Strunk would have his underwear around 

his ankles. Id. E.W. indicated that Strunk told him that his son had done this 

before. Id. E.W. stated that Strunk would show him “sex videos” and “how 

women get pregnant.” Id. E.W. further stated that Strunk “touched his wiener 

and butt” and “had taken pictures of his wiener.” Id. E.W. told the police that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2272 | April 8, 2019 Page 4 of 10

Strunk “puts his finger up my butt” and that it “feels weird.” Id. E.W. stated 

that when Strunk gave him a bath he would use his hands on his “weiner” and 

start rubbing him. Id. E.W. also stated that Strunk had shown E.W. his penis 

and that Strunk “jacks off and white stuff comes out onto the toilet paper that 

[Strunk] flushes down the toilet.” Id. E.W. indicated that, when he was in bed 

at Strunk’s house, Strunk would “suck on his peebird” and that it “feels weird.” 

Id. E.W. stated that Strunk told him “it will feel good when [you are] thirteen.” 

Id. E.W. told the police that Strunk told him to “keep this a secret” because 

Strunk “doesn’t want mommy and daddy to know” and he “doesn’t want to go 

to jail.” Id. E.W. indicated that all this happened when he was seven and eight 

years old. Id. 

[6] Strunk met with the police and voluntarily admitted that he has a “sexual 

problem” with young boys and that he has had children urinate on him. Id. at

65. Strunk stated that L.W. had urinated on him several times and 

acknowledged that this was a sexual fantasy of his. Id. Strunk also stated that 

he told L.W. the only way he would give her a bath is if she urinated on him. 

Id. Strunk admitted that E.W. has probably urinated on him at least ten times 

and that he would “tell [E.W.] things about sex hoping that [E.W.] would want 

to act on them.” Id. Strunk would sleep in the same bed with E.W. and would 

“jack him most of the time with [E.W.’s] underwear pulled up and on the 

outside of E.W.’s underwear.” Id. Strunk also took E.W.’s underwear down 

and masturbated E.W., telling E.W. that “it will feel a lot different when you 

become a teenager.” Id. Strunk also told the police that he had given E.W. “a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2272 | April 8, 2019 Page 5 of 10

blowjob” two times and that E.W. told him, “I don’t really like that.” Id. 

Strunk admitted that he would place E.W. on top of him and show E.W. “the 

feeling of what guys do on top of girls” and acknowledged that he and E.W.

were acting out having sex with their underwear still on. Id. Strunk also 

admitted that he had masturbated in front of E.W. probably ten times in the 

bathroom after E.W. urinated on him. Id. at 66. Strunk stated that he had 

offered for E.W. to put his penis in Strunk’s butt “for the experience of what it 

would be like if you’re doing it with a woman when you get older.” Id. at 67. 

[7] Strunk stated that he had “been wanting to put an end to it” because he did not 

feel right doing it and “didn’t want to lose his kids.” Id at 65. Strunk told the 

police that he told L.W. and E.W. not to say anything to anyone and that “if 

you say anything I won’t be able to do anything and then come back, and you 

guys won’t be able to see me again.” Id. at 67. Strunk also told L.W. and E.W. 

that he would probably go to prison. Id. 

[8] Strunk also later admitted to the police that his son had urinated on him about 

three times, and that his son has seen him masturbate four or five times. Id. at

68. Strunk stated that his daughter may have also walked in on him 

masturbating once or twice. Id. Strunk also admitted that he “did stuff with his 

nephew” when Strunk was younger. Id. at 66. 

[9] On October 4, 2017, the State charged Strunk with two counts of Level 1 felony 

child molesting, alleging that he performed or submitted to intercourse or other 

sexual conduct with E.W. when Strunk was over the age of twenty-one and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2272 | April 8, 2019 Page 6 of 10

E.W. was under the age of fourteen. On May 22, 2018, Strunk entered into a 

plea agreement under which he would plead guilty to one count of Level 1 

felony child molesting and the other count would be dismissed. 

[10] A sentencing hearing was held on August 23, 2018, at which the trial court 

considered aggravating and mitigating circumstances. As aggravating 

circumstances, the trial court found: (1) Strunk “committed a multitude of sex 

offenses going far beyond the single offense” to which he pleaded guilty; (2) 

Strunk’s “character indicate[d] there is a substantial likelihood he will 

reoffend”; (3) he violated “a position of care, custody, or control of the victim”; 

(4) he “committed a crime of violence and said commission occurred in the 

presence of another child, L.W., who was not the victim”; and (5) “E.W. has 

already and will continue to suffer from significant psychological and emotional 

impact that will be with him forever.” Id. at 108-09. As mitigating 

circumstances, the trial court found: (1) Strunk lacked a criminal history; and 

(2) Strunk is “mentally slow.” Id. at 109. Finding that the aggravating factors 

significantly outweighed the mitigating factors, the trial court sentenced Strunk 

to a maximum sentence of fifty years and determined him to be a credit 

restricted felon. Strunk now appeals his sentence.

Discussion and Decision

[11] Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), this court “may revise a sentence 

authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the 

[c]ourt finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and the character of the offender.” Our Supreme Court has explained 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2272 | April 8, 2019 Page 7 of 10

that the principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to leaven the 

outliers, “not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. 

State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). We independently examine the 

nature of Strunk’s offense and his character under Appellate Rule 7(B) with 

substantial deference to the trial court’s sentence. Satterfield v. State, 33 N.E.3d 

344, 355 (Ind. 2015). “In conducting our review, we do not look to see whether 

the defendant’s sentence is appropriate or if another sentence might be more 

appropriate; rather, the test is whether the sentence is ‘inappropriate.’” Barker v. 

State, 994 N.E.2d 306, 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. Whether a 

sentence is inappropriate ultimately depends upon “the culpability of the 

defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad 

of other factors that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 

1224. Strunk bears the burden of persuading this court that his sentence is 

inappropriate. Id.

[12] Strunk argues that his maximum fifty-year sentence is inappropriate in light of 

the nature of the offense and his character. Specifically, he contends that, 

although the crime of child molesting is heinous by nature and will likely inflict 

permanent damage to the victims, such harm is accounted for in the sentencing 

guidelines, especially where, as here, Strunk did not use force or physically 

harm E.W. Strunk asserts that his crime is not the worst of offenses. He further 

maintains that, when looking at his character, it is clear that his maximum 

sentence is inappropriate. Strunk claims that his lack of a criminal history, his 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2272 | April 8, 2019 Page 8 of 10

learning disability, and his traumatic and abusive childhood lend credence to 

his contention that his sentence is inappropriate.

[13] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, the advisory sentence is 

the starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the 

crime committed. Kunberger v. State, 46 N.E.3d 966, 973 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015); 

Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). Strunk was 

convicted of a Level 1 felony and determined to be a credit restricted felon, and 

the advisory sentence for a Level 1 felony conviction as a credit restricted felon 

is thirty years, with a range of between twenty and fifty years. Ind. Code §§ 35-

50-2-4(c), 35-31.5-2-72(1). Strunk received a sentence of fifty years executed for 

his Level 1 felony conviction.

[14] As this court has recognized, the nature of the offense is found in the details 

and circumstances of the commission of the offense and the defendant’s 

participation. Perry v. State, 78 N.E.3d 1, 13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). With respect 

to the nature of the offense, Strunk repeatedly subjected E.W. and L.W. to 

sexual abuse. These acts occurred when the children were staying at his 

residence in the care of him and his wife who were babysitting E.W. and L.W. 

Strunk repeatedly abused E.W. by forcing him to urinate on Strunk while 

Strunk masturbated and exposed E.W. to pornographic materials. Strunk also 

touched E.W.’s genitals, put his finger in E.W.’s butt, and performed oral sex 

on E.W. Additionally, Strunk forced L.W. to urinate on him if she wanted to 

take a bath. Although Strunk was only convicted of one offense, Strunk

actually committed numerous and repeated offenses against E.W., and in doing 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2272 | April 8, 2019 Page 9 of 10

so, he violated a position of trust. We, therefore, do not agree that the nature of 

Strunk’s offense makes his sentence inappropriate.

[15] However, we agree that Strunk’s sentence is inappropriate considering his 

character.2 The character of the offender is found in what we learn of the 

offender’s life and conduct. Perry, 78 N.E.3d at 13. When considering the 

character of the offender, one relevant fact is the defendant’s criminal history. 

Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852, 857 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Strunk has no 

criminal record and was thirty-two years old at the time of sentencing. The 

evidence showed that Strunk suffered significant abuse as a child. Appellant’s 

App. Vol. II at 41. Until the age of four and a half, he suffered physical, 

emotional, and sexual abuse at the hands of his mother and grandmother. Id. 

Later, when living with his adoptive parents, Strunk was sexually abused by his 

foster brother from the age of seven until fourteen, an older nephew on his 

adoptive mother’s side of the family from the age of six until fifteen, and his 

adoptive father’s brother from the age of fifteen until eighteen. Id. Strunk 

reported that he suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder because of the 

childhood abuse he experienced and that, although he completed twelve years 

of school, he has a learning disability and only has a third-grade educational 

level. Id. at 42-43. 

 

2 While we must consider both the nature of the offense and the character of the offender in determining 

whether a sentence is inappropriate, a defendant need not necessarily prove both prongs for us to find a 

sentence inappropriate. See Conner v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 218-19 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2272 | April 8, 2019 Page 10 of 10

[16] Strunk occupied a position of trust with E.W. and L.W. that he betrayed, and 

his offenses are undeniably reprehensible; however, Strunk’s learning disability 

and his own history of abuse must also be factored into the balance of all the 

factors. In addition, Strunk has shown a nexus between his mental health and 

the crimes which he committed. See Steinberg v. State, 941 N.E.2d 515, 534 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. Thus, while we find that an enhanced 

sentence is appropriate, the fifty-year maximum sentence as a credit restricted 

felon is not. We, therefore, invoke our authority under Indiana Appellate Rule 

7(B) and revise Strunk’s sentence to thirty-five years executed as a credit 

restricted felon. We remand the case to the trial court with instructions to enter 

such sentence.

[17] Vacated and remanded.

Riley, J., and Robb, J., concur.