Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-890 | October 5, 2023 Page 1 of 10

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

R. Brian Woodward

Crown Point, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Theodore E. Rokita

Indiana Attorney General

Alexandria Sons

Deputy Attorney General

David P. Dekold

Certified Legal Intern

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Harry Gillespie Nicholson, IV,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

October 5, 2023

Court of Appeals Case No.

23A-CR-890

Appeal from the Lake Superior 

Court

The Honorable Samuel L. Cappas, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

45G04-2103-F3-60

Opinion by Chief Judge Altice

Judges May and Foley concur.

Altice, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-890 | October 5, 2023 Page 2 of 10

Case Summary

[1] Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Harry Gillespie Nicholson, IV, 

pleaded guilty to Level 4 felony sexual misconduct with a minor. The trial 

court subsequently sentenced Nicholson to the maximum term of twelve years 

in the Department of Correction (DOC). On appeal, Nicholson argues that his 

sentence is inappropriate given the nature of his offense and his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] A.H. and her mother (Mother) began living with Nicholson in Illinois in 2007, 

when A.H. was four years old. Nicholson eventually became A.H.’s stepfather, 

and the family lived in various locations in Illinois before moving to Indiana in 

July 2018, when A.H. was fifteen years old. On March 18, 2021, A.H. 

disclosed to administrators at her high school that Nicholson had been sexually 

abusing her for the last fourteen years. According to A.H., the abuse had 

occurred more times than she could count. She offered the number “1500 

times” as a guess. Appendix at 19.

[4] A.H.’s first memory of the abuse was from shortly after she moved into 

Nicholson’s home at the age of four. Nicholson took her into his bedroom and 

told her to remove her clothing and lie on the bed. After she complied, he 

guided her hand to his penis and told her to move her hand back and forth. He

eventually placed his penis in her mouth, moving it in and out, until he 

ejaculated on the floor. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-890 | October 5, 2023 Page 3 of 10

[5] Similar incidents occurred over the next several years and sometimes also

included him rubbing her chest area and ejaculating on her body. A.H. 

indicated that he continued to touch her sexually and consistently, about three

to four times a week, generally when Mother was at work. At first, in response 

to A.H.’s protests, Nicholson would tell her that the “‘boogey man’ would 

come and get” her if she told anyone. Id. at 20.

[6] When A.H. was ten years old, Nicholson began attempting to have sexual 

intercourse with her, which caused her pain. He was unable to fully penetrate 

her vagina, but he kept trying for the next two years. During this time, he also 

started touching her vagina with his hands. 

[7] The first time Nicholson was able to fully penetrate A.H.’s vagina with his 

penis happened when she was twelve years old. From that point forward, “all 

of the sexual activity between the two of them [involved] some form of sexual 

intercourse.” Id. Nicholson would make A.H. say sexually explicit things to 

him, and he never wore a condom. Further, after obtaining a vasectomy in 

2019, Nicolson began ejaculating inside A.H. at times. 

[8] Nicolson started using money, fifty to one hundred dollars, as an incentive for 

A.H. to have sex with him once she was about thirteen or fourteen years old. If 

she refused his demands, he would withhold money and would not allow her to 

see her friends. Around the age of fifteen, Nicholson began having A.H. send 

nude pictures of herself to him. He also made A.H. perform oral sex on him 

often. A.H. estimated that since moving to Indiana at the age of fifteen in 2018, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-890 | October 5, 2023 Page 4 of 10

“Nicholson had sex with her approximately two times a week totaling 

‘hundreds of times.’” Id.

[9] On March 17, 2021, shortly after A.H. turned eighteen years old, Nicholson 

had sexual intercourse with her for the last time. He came home from work 

and told A.H. to come into his bedroom and take off her clothes. Nicholson 

“seemed annoyed” when A.H. did not follow his direction to take off her shirt. 

Id. He then spread her legs apart and put his penis in her vagina. A.H. later 

tearfully recounted during her sexual assault examination, 

He was holding my legs down and open. I was just laying there 

trying to think this wasn’t happening and wanting it over. Then 

he was holding my legs to the side while continuing, I told him it 

hurt my knees[,] so he moved my legs to the other side.

Id. at 20-21. A.H. left the home after this sexual encounter and did not shower 

before her sexual assault examination the next day.

[10] Before March 18, 2021, Mother was unaware of the abuse. A.H. had confided 

in friends in Illinois and Indiana in the last several years about her situation, but 

she did not give them details. When unsuccessful in encouraging A.H. to 

disclose the abuse, a friend went to her own parents, who then contacted the 

high school. This resulted in A.H. fully disclosing the abuse at school and to 

Mother and law enforcement on March 18, 2021. Nicholson was not arrested 

for eight more days, and in the interim, Mother and A.H. were “terrified as to 

what he would do if he found out a case was being made against him.” 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-890 | October 5, 2023 Page 5 of 10

Transcript at 17. They reported being “scared for their lives” because Nicholson 

was a former police officer and Marine and had “lots of guns.” Appendix at 19.

[11] On March 26, 2021, the State charged Nicholson with Level 3 felony rape, 

Level 4 felony sexual misconduct with a minor, Level 5 felony child seduction, 

Level 5 felony sexual misconduct with a minor, Level 6 felony child seduction, 

and Level 6 felony sexual battery. The parties entered into a plea agreement in 

February 2023, by which Nicholson pleaded guilty to Level 4 felony sexual 

misconduct with a minor (for having sexual intercourse with A.H. when she 

was at least fourteen but less than sixteen years of age) and the other counts

were dismissed. The plea agreement left sentencing to the discretion of the trial 

court.

[12] At the sentencing hearing on March 23, 2023, A.H. gave a victim impact 

statement explaining in part: “I can’t offer a clear before and after, only the 

trauma that’s been inflicted. The abuse that has occurred was almost my whole 

life up until the Defendant’s incarceration.” Transcript at 22. Because of the 

years of abuse, which she described as “violent experiences,” A.H. noted that 

she has been diagnosed with PTSD, depression, and anxiety. Id. She takes 

antidepressants and faces “many years if not a lifetime of healing and therapy.” 

Id. A.H. indicated that the abuse caused difficulty for her in “building longterm intimate relationships.” Id. at 24. Finally, A.H. opined, “if the Defendant 

is ever presented with the opportunity to do something like this again, I know 

that he would take advantage of it.” Id. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-890 | October 5, 2023 Page 6 of 10

[13] Mother also gave a statement at sentencing. She expressed fear that Nicholson 

would violate an order of protection, as he had stated to her “many times”

before that “it is just a piece of paper” and that “living in rural Lowell, Indiana, 

it could take up to a half an hour for a police officer to respond to a call.” Id. at 

19. Mother stated that she often wakes up in the middle of the night to make 

sure the doors and windows are locked and that she had disassociated with 

many friends and family to keep them safe. Mother also remarked, “If the 

Defendant can do such heinous things to a child that he referred to as his own 

daughter, I can’t imagine he wouldn’t do this to somebody else.” Id. at 20.

[14] At the end of the sentencing hearing, the trial court rejected mitigating 

circumstances proffered by Nicholson, finding that the circumstances were 

extremely likely to reoccur given that he had repeatedly molested A.H. for 

fourteen years and that Nicholson’s plea was a “practical solution to [his] 

predicament” because of DNA evidence and avoidance of a rape conviction. 

Appendix at 99. The trial court found aggravating circumstances including, 

among others: Nicholson was in a position of trust as A.H.’s stepfather; he had 

been a law enforcement officer yet violated the law many times; he molested 

A.H. over 1500 times, grooming her for fourteen years and breaking her spirit;

the emotional and mental trauma caused by Nicholson scarred A.H. for life; 

and the harm suffered by A.H. was significant and greater than the elements

necessary to prove the offense, as he molested her hundreds of times and had 

her send naked photographs of herself to him. Ultimately, the trial court found 

that despite Nicholson’s lack of prior convictions, he was “the worst of the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-890 | October 5, 2023 Page 7 of 10

worst” with a fourteen-year history of molesting A.H. Transcript at 48. The 

court observed that Nicholson was “the boogeyman” and sentenced him to 

twelve years in the DOC. Id. at 47.

[15] Nicholson now appeals, challenging the appropriateness of the trial court’s 

imposition of the maximum sentence. Additional information will be provided 

below as needed.

Discussion & Decision

[16] Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7(b), this court may revise a sentence, if, after 

considering the trial court’s decision, we find that the sentence is inappropriate 

in light of the nature of the offense and character of the offender. Sentencing 

review under App. R. 7(b) is deferential to the trial court’s decision, and we 

avoid merely substituting our judgment. Golden v. State, 862 N.E. 2d 1212, 1218 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. “Such deference should prevail unless 

overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the 

offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the 

defendant’s character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples 

of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[17] The principal role of App. R. 7(b) review is to “attempt to leaven the outliers” 

and to “identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with 

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

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

2008). The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-890 | October 5, 2023 Page 8 of 10

question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 

N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Nicholson bears the burden on appeal of 

persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 

1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

[18] As the trial court imposed the maximum sentence here,

1 Nicholson directs us to 

the Supreme Court’s observation that maximum sentences are “generally most 

appropriate for the worst offenders,” which he claims he is not. Buchanan v. 

State, 767 N.E.2d 967, 973 (Ind. 2002). The Supreme Court explained:

This is not, however, a guideline to determine whether a worse 

offender could be imagined. Despite the nature of any particular 

offense and offender, it will always be possible to identify or 

hypothesize a significantly more despicable scenario. Although 

maximum sentences are ordinarily appropriate for the worst 

offenders, we refer generally to the class of offenses and offenders 

that warrant the maximum punishment. But such class 

encompasses a considerable variety of offenses and offenders.

Id. For the reasons below, we agree with the trial court that Nicholson is within 

the class of offenders for whom the maximum possible sentence is appropriate.

[19] The nature, extent, and depravity of Nicholson’s sexual abuse of A.H. warrant 

imposing the maximum sentence. His conviction required only one instance of 

sexual intercourse with A.H. when she was at least fourteen but less than 

1 The sentencing range for a Level 4 felony is two to twelve years, with an advisory sentence of six years. 

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-890 | October 5, 2023 Page 9 of 10

sixteen years of age, yet the record establishes that he had sexual intercourse –

always unprotected - with her hundreds of times since she was twelve years old, 

having tried unsuccessfully and consistently for two years before that. And he 

began molesting her and having her perform oral sex on him at the tender age 

of four. When she would protest at a young age, he threatened that the 

“boogeyman” would get her if she told anyone.2

 Later, he withheld money and 

isolated her from friends if she did not engage in sexual intercourse with him. 

Nicholson was in a significant position of trust over A.H., which he violated 

consistently for fourteen years, several times a week, for an estimated total of 

1500 times. Additionally, for the last few years of the abuse, Nicholson had 

been requesting nude photographs from A.H.

[20] As the State argued at the sentencing hearing, the harm suffered by A.H., and 

later Mother, was “unbearable, crippling.” Transcript at 30. A.H. endured a life 

of abuse for nearly her entire childhood at the hands of her own stepfather. As 

a result, she suffers from PTSD, depression, and anxiety and will likely struggle 

with mental and emotional issues for years to come, if not forever. Mother’s 

life has also been altered tremendously. 

2 Nicholson suggests that he never used force or threat of harm when sexually abusing A.H. However, his

threats about the “boogeyman” would have likely terrified a young child, and his grooming of A.H. since a 

young age helped ensure that he need not resort to such scare tactics for long. Indeed, according to A.H., 

after about the age of seven, “she did not threaten to tell anyone and these acts became something which she 

just got used to.” Appendix at 20. Moreover, regarding her last sexual encounter with Nicholson, A.H. 

explained that he became annoyed when she would not remove her shirt and then he spread her legs, holding 

them “down and open,” as he penetrated her vagina with his penis. Id. at 21. Describing the years of abuse, 

A.H. stated: “He would do it whenever he could. I just stopped fighting after a while.... He just held me 

down at my legs and hips.” Id. at 20-21.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-890 | October 5, 2023 Page 10 of 10

[21] Turning to character, Nicholson notes that he had no prior criminal convictions

and that the only other charge filed against him was for violating a protective 

order in 2008. He also observes that at the time of his instant arrest he was 

employed full-time earning a six-figure income, that he successfully raised two 

sons (both now adults), and that he was honorably discharged by the United 

States Marine Corps in 1997. Despite this, we find most telling of Nicholson’s 

character that he did not lead a law-abiding life throughout the fourteen years 

that he was actively and repeatedly abusing A.H., his own stepdaughter, from 

the tender age of four into early adulthood. 

[22] Nicholson has failed to establish that the maximum sentence imposed by the 

trial court was inappropriate given the nature of the offense and his character. 

Accordingly, we affirm Nicholson’s twelve-year sentence.

[23] Judgment affirmed.

May, J. and Foley, J., concur.