Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1409-CR-340 | June 10, 2015 Page 1 of 6

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

Marce Gonzalez, Jr.

Dyer, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Brian Reitz

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jesse Jesus Pineda, Sr.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

June 10, 2015

Court of Appeals Cause No.

45A03-1409-CR-340

Appeal from the Lake Superior 

Court

Cause No. 45G01-1212-FA-27

The Honorable Salvador Vasquez, 

Judge

Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1409-CR-340 | June 10, 2015 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary

[1] Jesse Jesus Pineda, Sr., appeals his aggregate fifteen-year sentence for two 

counts of Class C felony child molesting. We affirm.

Issue

[2] The sole issue before us is whether Pineda’s sentence is inappropriate.

Facts

[3] Pineda is the grandfather of sisters A.P. and D.P. Pineda and his wife, the 

children’s grandmother, frequently cared for the children. Between October 

2000 and October 2004, Pineda would have A.P. sit on his lap and he would 

then place his hand on her vagina. During this time period, A.P. was between 

five and eight years old. A.P. did not tell anyone about the molestation at that 

time. Later, between October 2010 and October 2012, Pineda engaged in the 

same activity with D.P., when she was between three and five years old. The 

molestation of D.P. was discovered when she developed a rash on her vagina 

that was diagnosed as herpes. Pineda also has herpes.1 After the molestation of 

D.P. was discovered, A.P. revealed her molestation as well.

[4] The State charged Pineda with one count of Class A felony child molestation 

and two counts of Class C felony child molestation. Pineda agreed to plead 

guilty to two counts of Class C felony child molestation, and the State 

 

1 There is no evidence that A.P. contracted herpes.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1409-CR-340 | June 10, 2015 Page 3 of 6

dismissed the Class A felony count. At sentencing, Pineda’s son testified that 

Pineda also had fondled him when he was six or seven years old. A.P. testified 

as to the emotional harm Pineda had caused her, and a letter was submitted 

from D.P., then seven, stating that Pineda had “hurt me bad and again.” 

Sentencing Tr. p. 13. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, when given 

an opportunity to make a statement, Pineda only said, “mostly these are a 

bunch of lies. It never happened. There was no truth, your Honor—well, I 

pled guilty already, so I can’t say much.” Id. at 30.

[5] In sentencing Pineda, the trial court noted his guilty plea as mitigating but gave 

it little weight because of the dismissal of the Class A felony charge. As 

aggravating, the trial court found that Pineda committed multiple acts against 

multiple victims, that he was “dishonest and manipulative,” that he violated a 

position of trust, that both A.P. and D.P. were substantially younger than the 

minimum age needed to support the convictions, and that both he and D.P. 

now have herpes. App. p. 58. The trial court imposed executed sentences of 

eight and seven years on each count, to be served consecutively for a total term 

of fifteen years. Pineda now appeals.

Analysis

[6] Pineda contends that his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate 

Rule 7(B) in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Although Rule 

7(B) does not require us to be “extremely” deferential to a trial court’s 

sentencing decision, we still must give due consideration to that decision. 

Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We also 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1409-CR-340 | June 10, 2015 Page 4 of 6

understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its 

sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a defendant bears the burden of 

persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate.” Id.

[7] The principal role of Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the 

outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged 

with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived 

‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 

2008). We “should focus on the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than 

the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the 

sentence on any individual count.” Id. Whether a sentence is inappropriate 

ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, 

the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a 

given case. Id. at 1224. When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence 

under Rule 7(B), we may consider all aspects of the penal consequences 

imposed by the trial court in sentencing the defendant, including whether a 

portion of the sentence was suspended. Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023, 

1025 (Ind. 2010).

[8] Regarding the nature of the offenses, Pineda repeatedly fondled both A.P. and 

D.P. over a several year period with respect to each child. This was not an 

isolated mistake or one-time incident. Cf. Phelps v. State, 914 N.E.2d 283, 293-

94 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (reducing sentences for vicarious sexual gratification 

with minors based in part on fact that multiple acts occurred during one 

evening). In doing so, he abused his position of trust as a grandfather and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1409-CR-340 | June 10, 2015 Page 5 of 6

frequent caretaker. There was clear evidence that he infected D.P. with Herpes, 

an ailment that will affect her for the rest of her life. Cf. Sanchez v. State, 938 

N.E.2d 720, 723 (Ind. 2010) (reducing child molestation sentences for two 

victims in part because defendant “did not physical [sic] harm the victims”). 

[9] As for Pineda’s character, he points to his lack of a significant prior criminal 

history.2 However, Pineda’s lack of significant prior convictions does not mean 

he was an entirely law-abiding citizen. He molested both A.P. and D.P. over a 

number of years of his life. Additionally, Pineda’s son testified under oath at 

the sentencing hearing regarding acts Pineda perpetrated when the son was six 

or seven years old. Under the circumstances, Pineda’s lack of significant prior 

convictions is not an indication that he lived a crime-free life. 

[10] We also acknowledge that Pineda pled guilty. As noted by the trial court, 

however, Pineda already received a significant benefit from that plea by 

avoiding prosecution for a Class A felony charge. Additionally, the plea does 

not seem to demonstrate a full acceptance of responsibility by Pineda. At the 

sentencing hearing, when given an opportunity to make a statement, Pineda 

expressed no remorse whatsoever. Rather, he took that opportunity to accuse 

those who had testified against him at the hearing of lying.

 

2 The only apparent conviction in Pineda’s past is a 1976 misdemeanor for possessing a gun without a 

permit.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1409-CR-340 | June 10, 2015 Page 6 of 6

[11] Finally, we note Pineda’s claim that he has limited mental capacity, as 

indicated by his enrollment in special education classes while in school. 

However, Pineda fails to direct us to any evidence that his purported mental 

difficulties had any relation to his molestations of A.P. and D.P. In sum, we 

see nothing in Pineda’s character that warrants revision of his sentence in light 

of the egregiousness of the offenses.

Conclusion

[12] Pineda’s fifteen-year sentence for two counts of Class C felony child molesting 

is not inappropriate. We affirm.

[13] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Bailey, J., concur.

.