Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 89A05-1410-CR-500 | April 21, 2015 Page 1 of 5

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

Mark I. Cox

The Mark I. Cox Law Office, LLC

Richmond, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Richard C. Webster

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Timothy M. Roberts, Jr.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 21, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

89A05-1410-CR-500

Appeal from the Wayne Circuit 

Court.

The Honorable David A. Kolger, 

Judge.

Cause No. 89C01-1302-FA-5

Darden, Senior Judge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 89A05-1410-CR-500 | April 21, 2015 Page 2 of 5

Statement of the Case

[1] Timothy M. Roberts, Jr., appeals his conviction of child molesting, a Class A 

felony.1 We affirm.

Issue

[2] Whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain Roberts’s conviction.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Laura Rubino gave birth to D.F. on October 25, 2000. Rubino subsequently 

began a relationship with Roberts, and they had two children together. After 

the relationship ended, Rubino and her three children moved to Richmond, 

Indiana.

[4] In March 2009, Roberts moved to Richmond and cared for the children while 

Rubino was at work. One evening, Roberts had D.F. leave her bedroom and go 

to the living room. He removed her clothes and rubbed his penis against her 

vagina. Next, Roberts had D.F. put her mouth on his penis. He ejaculated and 

told her to swallow it instead of spitting it out. D.F. asked Roberts what he was 

doing to her, and he told her “he couldn’t tell me because I’d tell someone.” 

Tr. p. 217. Roberts had D.F. put her mouth on his penis at least “ten, fifteen”

times in the months following the first incident. Id. at 220.

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3 (2007).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 89A05-1410-CR-500 | April 21, 2015 Page 3 of 5

[5] D.F. later disclosed to Rubino’s boyfriend what Roberts had done to her. 

When D.F. was later in foster care, she also told her foster mother about 

Roberts’s molestations.

[6] The State charged Roberts with child molesting as a Class A felony. A jury 

determined that Roberts was guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced 

Roberts, and this appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Roberts claims the State failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain his 

conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. In considering challenges to the 

sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness 

credibility. Caruthers v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1016, 1022 (Ind. 2010). Instead, we 

consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable 

inferences drawn from the evidence. Tin Thang v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1256, 1258 

(Ind. 2014). We affirm a conviction unless no reasonable trier of fact could find 

every element proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Blount v. State, 22 N.E.3d 

559, 565 (Ind. 2014).

[8] In order to convict Roberts of child molesting as a Class A felony, the State was 

required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Roberts: (1) a person of at 

least twenty-one years of age (2) performed or submitted to sexual intercourse 

or deviate sexual conduct (3) with a child under fourteen years of age. Ind. 

Code § 35-42-4-3. During the period of time relevant to this case, “deviate 

sexual conduct” was defined as “an act involving . . . a sex organ of one person 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 89A05-1410-CR-500 | April 21, 2015 Page 4 of 5

and the mouth or anus of another person . . . or the penetration of the sex organ 

or anus of a person by an object.” Ind. Code § 35-41-1-9 (repealed 2012).

[9] There is no dispute that Roberts was older than twenty-one years of age or that 

D.F. was under fourteen years of age when the acts at issue occurred. Further, 

D.F. testified specifically and in in detail about the first time that Roberts forced 

her to put her mouth on his penis, and she further testified that it happened 

again at least ten to fifteen other times during the time period at issue here. 

This is sufficient evidence that Roberts submitted to deviate sexual conduct 

with D.F. See Ware v. State, 816 N.E.2d 1167, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) 

(victim’s testimony that defendant performed deviate sexual conduct on 

multiple occasions during time period sufficient to sustain convictions).

[10] Roberts asserts that there is no physical evidence, but considering the manner in 

which the crimes were committed and the totality of the facts and 

circumstances surrounding the incidents, it is unlikely that there would ever be 

any physical evidence available. Roberts also claims that D.F.’s testimony was 

inconsistent. However, a molested child’s uncorroborated testimony is 

sufficient to sustain a conviction. Carter v. State, 754 N.E.2d 877, 880 (Ind. 

2001). Furthermore, any inconsistencies were a matter for the jury to weigh in 

assessing D.F.’s credibility.

Conclusion

[11] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[12] Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 89A05-1410-CR-500 | April 21, 2015 Page 5 of 5

Najam, J., and Mathias, J., concur.