Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-51 | January 16, 2019 Page 1 of 7

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

William T. Myers

Grant County Public Defender

Marion, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Chandra K. Hein

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

James Ray Gipson,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

January 16, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-51

Appeal from the Grant Superior 

Court

The Honorable Dana Kenworthy, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

27D02-1509-FA-4

May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-51 | January 16, 2019 Page 2 of 7

[1] James Ray Gipson appeals following his convictions of four counts of Class B 

felony child molesting,

1 seven counts of Class A felony child molesting,2 four 

counts of Class B felony incest,

3 one count of Class D felony child solicitation,4

and one count of Class B felony attempted incest.

5 He argues the trial court 

abused its discretion when sentencing him to consecutive sentences. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Gipson has two daughters, C.G. and J.S., born in 1984 and 1986, respectively. 

Gipson’s inappropriate behavior began when C.G. was nine years old. On 

multiple occasions Gipson walked in while C.G. was taking a bath. Gipson 

also showered with C.G. and would become aroused during those showers. 

When C.G. was between the ages of ten and twelve, Gipson would rub C.G.’s 

legs, using shin splints as an excuse. Gipson would eventually slide his hands 

all the way up C.G.’s legs and touch C.G.’s vagina. 

[3] When C.G. was in fifth grade, Gipson discovered love notes from boys to C.G. 

Gipson read the notes with C.G. and told her the boys wanted to have sex with 

her. Gipson told C.G. she needed to have her first sexual experience with him. 

 

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3 (a) (1994).

2 Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a)(1) (Three counts in 1996) (Four counts in 1998).

3 Ind. Code § 35-46-1-3 (1994).

4 Ind. Code § 35-42-4-6 (a)(1) (1994).

5 Ind. Code § 35-46-1-3 (1994) & Ind. Code § 35-41-5-1 (1977).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-51 | January 16, 2019 Page 3 of 7

When C.G. was thirteen, Gipson told C.G. incest was allowed, because it was 

in the Bible, and Gipson read multiple verses about incest to C.G. 

[4] Gipson also molested J.S. regularly, at least once a week for six years. Starting 

when J.S. was in third grade, Gipson used shin splints as an excuse to rub J.S.’s 

legs. Gipson would slide his hands up her leg and then put his fingers in her 

vagina. Gipson would also have J.S. put her feet on his lap against his penis. 

Gipson would become aroused when this happened. Whenever J.S. was in the 

pool Gipson would make J.S. kiss him while he rubbed her body. Gipson told 

J.S. the molestation means “I love you and it means you love me and this is 

what we’re supposed to do.” (Tr. Vol. III at 83.) 

[5] The last incident occurred during a sleepover. J.S. and her friends were 

sleeping in the backyard. J.S. woke up while Gipson was standing over her 

with his fingers in her vagina. J.S. told C.G. what Gipson did and how he had 

molested her for years. C.G. and J.S. agreed to stay away from Gipson. 

[6] In April 2015, C.G. and J.S. reported Gipson to the police. Gipson was 

charged with of four counts of Class B felony child molesting, seven counts of 

Class A felony child molesting, four counts of Class B felony incest, one count 

of Class D felony child solicitation, and one count of Class B felony attempted 

incest. A jury found Gipson guilty on all seventeen counts. 

[7] The trial court sentenced Gipson to thirty-five years for each Class A felony, ten

years for each Class B felony, and one-and-a-half years for the Class D felony. 

The trial court ordered the Class B felonies, the Class D felony, and four of the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-51 | January 16, 2019 Page 4 of 7

Class A felonies served concurrent with three Class A felonies, but ordered 

those three Class A felonies served consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of 

one-hundred-and-five years in prison. 

Discussion and Decision

[8] “We initially observe that sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion 

of the trial court and are reviewed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion.” 

Gleason v. State, 965 N.E.2d 702, 710 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). An abuse of 

discretion occurs if the decision is “clearly against the logic and effect of the 

facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual 

deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 

(Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). A trial court abuses its 

discretion by: “(1) issuing an inadequate sentencing statement, (2) finding 

aggravating or mitigating factors that are not supported by the record, (3) 

omitting factors that are clearly supported by the record and advanced for 

consideration, or (4) finding factors that are improper as a matter of law.” 

Gleason, 965 N.E.2d at 710. 

[9] “[T]he court shall determine whether terms of imprisonment shall be served 

concurrently or consecutively. The court may consider the aggravating and

mitigating circumstances in Indiana Code § 35-38-1-7.1(b) and Indiana Code §

35-38-1-7.1(c) in making a determination under this subsection.” Ind. Code § 

35-50-1-2(c) (1996). Gipson argues the trial court abused its discretion in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-51 | January 16, 2019 Page 5 of 7

ordering consecutive sentences because it failed to articulate evidence to justify 

the sentence. 

[10] The trial court found many aggravating factors that allowed the consecutive 

sentence. Gipson was in a position of trust with his victims. C.G. and J.S were 

Gipson’s daughters and lived with him and their mother in the family’s home. 

See Edrington v. State, 909 N.E.2d 1093, 1101 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (defendant 

violating position of trust with victim allowed for an enhanced sentence), trans. 

denied. The trial court also pointed out that J.S. was nine-years-old at the time 

of the first offense and the abuse went on for many years. C.G. and J.S. 

continued into their adulthood to experience negative consequences from the 

abuse. Specifically, J.S. continues to experience panic attacks and struggle with 

adult relationships and low self-esteem. (See Tr. Vol. IV at 211-13.) C.G. said 

she still is “not right” after what Gipson did to her. (Tr. Vol. II at 236.) The 

trial court noted Gipson has a narcissistic personality, is a repeat offender, and 

used religion to perpetrate his crimes. The trial court stated:

I think the evidence in this case was clear throughout particularly 

during Mr. Gipson’s testimony that he is what I would say is the 

worst of the worst. Um, he is narcissistic. He is a pedophile. He 

is a predator, and he enlisted religion to perpetrate his crimes, 

um, on his biological children.

(Tr. Vol. IV at 224.)

[11] The trial court found no mitigating factors. Gipson argues that, when 

sentencing him, the court did not consider his “traumatic injury.” (Br. of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-51 | January 16, 2019 Page 6 of 7

Appellant at 9.) “When a defendant offers evidence of mitigators, the trial 

court has the discretion to determine whether the factors are mitigating, and it is 

not required to explain why it does not find the proffered factors to be 

mitigating.” Johnson v. State, 855 N.E.2d 1014, 1016 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. 

denied. During trial, reference was made to hand injuries. Gipson explained he 

was involved in a gasoline accident that left him without the use of his hands 

for two years. (Tr. Vol IV at 10-11.) During sentencing, Gipson referred to a 

“traumatic brain injury,” and mental health issues.6

 (Id. at 221-222.) We are 

unsure whether Gipson asserts the trial court should have found a mitigator in

his hand injury, a traumatic brain injury, or his self-reported mental health 

issues. Because it is unclear which injury is the traumatic injury the court 

should have found, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion. See 

Battle v. State, 688 N.E.2d 1230, 1237 (Ind. 1997) (trial court’s failure to find any 

mitigating circumstances was not an abuse of discretion).

[12] In summary, the trial court found a number of aggravators that could be used to 

justify consecutive sentences, and Gipson has not demonstrated the trial court 

abused its discretion in failing to find his purported mitigator. We accordingly 

find no abuse of discretion in the court’s imposition of consecutive sentences for 

three of Gipson’s seventeen convictions. See O’Connell v. State, 742 N.E.2d 943, 

 

6 In the Presentence Investigation, Gipson reported being diagnosed with depression four different times. 

Gipson also reported being diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in 1970, 1973, 1991 

through 1993, and 2001. Gipson received counseling for his PTSD for two years after burning his hands, but 

quit going in 1991. (App. Vol. III at 11.) We found no mention of a brain injury in the Presentence 

Investigation. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-51 | January 16, 2019 Page 7 of 7

952 (Ind. 2001) (multiple victims or multiple crimes justifies imposing 

consecutive sentences).

Conclusion

[13] The trial court properly found aggravators allowing it to sentence Gipson to 

consecutive sentences and did not have to consider the same mitigating factors 

the defense did. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when 

sentencing Gipson. Accordingly, we affirm.

[14] Affirmed

Baker, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.