Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A

- CR

- 102 | December 7, 2020 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

. A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Christopher Kunz Marion County Public Defender Appellate Division Indianapolis, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General Tiffany A. McCoy Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana



### I N T H E 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Robert L. Morrison , Appellant

- Defendant,

v. 

### State of Indiana , Appellee

- Plaintiff December 7, 2020 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 20A

- CR

- 102 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Lisa Borges, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G 04

- 1810

- FA

- 37521

Vaidik , Judge .Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A

- CR

- 102 | December 7, 2020 Page 2 of 10 

# Case Summary

[1] Robert L. Morrison challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and his thirty

year advisory sentence for Class A felony child molesting. We affirm.



# Facts and Procedural History

[2] April Hurley has two daughters, T.H. and K.H. I n March 2009, April moved into her mother Radeena McKamey’s house in Indianapolis . Morrison , who dated Radeena , also lived there

. On the weekends, T.H. , who was six or seven years old, and K.H. , who was five or six years old, stay ed with April at Radeena’s house. Tr. Vol. II pp. 203, 223. In June 2009, April , T.H. , and K.H. moved into their own house in Indianapolis . Because April worked two jobs, Radeena often babysat the girls at her house or April’s house. Morrison sometimes went with Radeen a to April’s house. Radeena and Morrison broke up later that year

.
[3] In 2016, April , T .H., and K .H. moved to Texas. In April 2018, K.H. disclosed to her mo ther that Morrison had inappropriately touched her when he lived with Radeena. A fter talking to T.H

. , April called the police and took T.H. and K.H. to a child

- advocacy center in Texas to be interviewed

.
[4] In October 2018, the State charged Morrison with Class A felony child molesting ( “ deviate sexual conduct ” ) relating to T.H. and Class C felony child molesting (touching or fondling) relating to K.H. The State also alleged Morrison was a habitual offender.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A

- CR

- 102 | December 7, 2020 Page 3 of 10 [5] A jury trial was held in December 2019

. T.H. was seventeen years old , and K.H. was fifteen. K.H. testified Morrison touched her over and under her clothes. T.H. testified about a time when Morrison touched her “in between” her “labia

. ” T.H. said she and K.H. were asleep in their bunk beds when she woke up to Morrison touching her : Q And were you asleep when you remember something happening?
A Yeah, I remember falling asleep; but waking up. Q Okay. So what do you remember waking up to?
A Him touching me. Q And when you say him touching you, who is him?
A Robert. Q And what do you re member feeling when you woke up? I know you said him touching you. But what part of your body was he touching?
A My vagina. Q And do you remember what he was touching your body with?
A His hands.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A

- CR

- 102 | December 7, 2020 Page 4 of 10 Q Was that over the clothes or under the clothes?
A Under the clothes.
* * * * * Q Okay. And when his hand was on your vagina, what specifically did his hand do?
A It like touched inside my pants. Q It touched inside your pants?
A Yes. Q Where inside your pants did it touch?
A Like between like the two flaps. Q You said the two flaps?
A Yes. Q Okay. Do you know is there another name for that?
A Labia, I think? Q You said labia?
A Yes.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A

- CR

- 102 | December 7, 2020 Page 5 of 10 Q And so then is there anything else that was touched?
A No; no, ma ’ am. Q Was he outside what you referred to as labia

. . . , in between the two labia?
A In between. Q A ll right. And did he go any further than that that you recall?
A No, ma ’ am.
Id. at 226

- 28. T.H. said she heard K.H. moving around in her bunk , so she let M orrison continue touching her so he would not touch her younger sister. Id . at 228.

[6] The jury found Morrison guilty of both child

- molesting counts and also found him to be a habitual offender. At the sentencing hearing, April described how her daughters had experienced “[d] aily struggles of anxiety and questioning their self

- worth ” and how T. H. had experienced gender

- identity issues due to the molestation . Tr. Vol. III p. 117. In addition, the State presented evidence of Morrison’s criminal history

. As a juvenile, Morrison was adjudicated a delinquent for burglary and theft. Morrison’s adult criminal history includes one misdemeanor conviction for prostitution in 1988 and three felony convictions : Class B felony burglary in 1985 and Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft in 1989

. While Morrison was in prison for his 1989Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A

- CR

- 102 | December 7, 2020 Page 6 of 10 convictions , he had twenty
- nine “ prison conduct incidents. ” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 167. In addition, Morrison has violated his probation and had his probation revoked.

[7] The trial court identified no mitigators and five aggravators: (1) the harm suffered by T.H. and K.H. was significant and greater than the el ements necessary to prove the offense s because they “have continued to reexperience the events of their molestation

. . . as they have grown up ” ; (2) T.H. and K.H. were present when each other was molested; (3) T.H. “has experienced long

term sexual identity issues” due to the moles t ation ; (4) Morrison was in a position of trust with T.H. and K.H

. ; and (5) Morrison had “29 prison conduct incidents between 1992 and 1995. ” Tr. Vol. III pp. 133 , 134

. The court acknowledged Morrison had a criminal history but noted it was “aged” and he had “ lived essentially a law

- [ a ] biding life for a good number of years. ” Id. at 134. The court sentenced Morriso n to the advisory term of thirty years for Class A felony child molesting, enhanced by thirty years for being a habitual offender, and four years for Class C felony child molesting. 1 The court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively, for a total sentence of sixty

- four years.

[8] Morrison now appeals. 2

1 At the time of the offenses, the habitual

- offender statute required a thirty

- year enhancement. See Ind. Code § 35

- 50

- 2

- 8 (h) (2009)

. 2 In his opening brief, Morrison argued his Class C felony child

- molesting conviction should be reversed because prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations. However, in his reply brief , Morrison concede s the State correct ly argued there was no sta tute
- of

- limitations violation. Appellant’s Reply Br. p. 4.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A

- CR

- 102 | December 7, 2020 Page 7 of 10 

# Discussion and Decision I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[9] Morrison challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his Class A felony child

molesting conviction

. 3 When reviewing sufficiency

- of

- the

- evidence claims, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Willis v. State , 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015) . We will only consider the evidence supporting the verdict and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. Id. A conviction will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support ea ch element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[10] To obtain a conviction for Class A felony child molesting as charged here, the State had to prove that Morrison , who was at least twenty

- one years old , knowingly or intentionally performed “deviate sexual conduct” with T.H. , who

was less than fourteen. Ind. Code § 35

- 42

- 4

- 3 (a) (200 9 ) ; Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 27. Although t he legislature has since replaced the term “devia te sexual conduct” with “other sexual conduct” in the child

- molesting statute, the definition s are identical: “ the penetration of the sex organ or anus of a person by an object.” Ind. Code § § 35

- 41

- 1

- 9 (200 9 ), 35

- 31.5

- 2

- 221.5

.

3 Morrison does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for his Class C felony child

- molesting conviction.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A

- CR

- 102 | December 7, 2020 Page 8 of 10 [11] Morrison argues the evidenc e is insufficient to support his conviction because

“ merely touching the exterior genitalia is not ‘ penetration ’ for purposes of child molesting. ” Appellant’s Br. p. 9. In Boggs v. State , the defendant was found guilty of Level 1 felony child molesting for engaging in “other sexual conduct .” 104 N.E.3d 1287, 1288 (Ind. 2018)

. The victim testified the defendant put his finger “in the folds of her vagina” and touched her clitoris. Id. The defendant appealed , arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove “ penetration” for purposes of the statute defining “ other sexual conduct. ” Our Supreme Court held “ proof of the slightest penetration of the sex organ, including penetration of the exte rnal genitalia, is sufficient to demonstrate a person performed” “other sexual conduct” with a child. Id. at 1289

. Finding the defendant performed

“ other sexual conduct ” with the victim , the Court affirmed his conviction for Level 1 felony child molest ing

.
[12] This case is similar to Boggs

. T.H. testified Morrison put his hand “in between” her “labia .” Contrary to Morrison’s claim, he didn’t merely touch T.H.’s external genitalia ; rather, he put his hand “in betwee n” her external genitalia

. Under Boggs , t his is penetration

. 4 We therefore affirm Morrison’s conviction for Class A felony child molesting.

4 Morrison claims this case is similar to Spurlock v. State , 675 N.E.2d 312 (Ind. 1 996) . It is not. In Spurlock , the defendant argued the evidence was insufficient to prove penetration for purposes of sexual intercourse. Our Supreme Court agreed, point ing out the victim testified the defendant “ tried ” to have sexual intercourse with her but she did n’t know whether he put his penis inside her. Id. at 315

. Here, T.H. knew exactly what happened to her: Morrison put his hand “in between” her “labia.”Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A

- CR

- 102 | December 7, 2020 Page 9 of 10 

## II. In appropriate Sentence
[13] Morrison next contends his thirty

- year sentence for Class A felony child molesting is inappropriate and asks us to revise it under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) to twenty years , resulting in a total sentence of fifty

- four years instead of sixty

- four years

. 5 Appellate Rule 7(B) provides tha t an appellate court “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial
court ’ s decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” “Wheth er a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on 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.” Thompson v. State , 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App . 2014) (citing Cardwell v. State , 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008) ). Because we generally defer to the judgment of trial courts in sentencing matters, defendants must persuade us that their sentences are inappropriate. Schaaf v. State , 54 N.E.3d 1041, 10 44

- 45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)

.
[14] A person who commits a Class A felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between twenty to fifty years, with an advisory sentence of thirty years. Ind. Code § 35

- 50

- 2

- 4(a)

. Here, the trial court sentenced Morrison to the ad visory term of thirty years

.

5 Morrison doesn’t challenge his habitual

- offender enha ncement or his sentence for Class C felony child molesting.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A

- CR

- 102 | December 7, 2020 Page 10 of 10 [15] There is nothing about the nature of the offense that requires a revision of Morrison’s advisory sentence

. Morrison , who was dating T.H.’s grandm other , molested T.H. while her younger sister was in the other bunk. According to April, T.H. has experienc ed “[d] aily struggles of anxiety and questioning [her] self

- worth ” and gender

- identity issues due to the molestation.

[16] As for his character, Morrison notes he has led a law

- abiding life since he was released from prison in 1998 and maintained consistent employment

. Although Morrison’s criminal history is “aged,” as the trial court found, neither th at nor the fact he has been employed w arrant s a reduction from the advisory sentence. We therefore af

firm his sentence.

[17] Affirmed. Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.