Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1705-CR-1014 | October 12, 2017 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

Jeffery A. Earl

Danville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Ellen H. Meilaender

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Daniel F. Delacruz,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

October 12, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

32A01-1705-CR-1014

Appeal from the Hendricks Superior 

Court.

The Honorable Karen M. Love, 

Judge.

Trial Court Cause No. 

32D03-1601-FC-1

Friedlander, Senior Judge

[1] Daniel F. Delacruz appeals the sentence the trial court imposed upon his 

convictions of three counts of sexual misconduct with a minor, all Class C 

felonies. We affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1705-CR-1014 | October 12, 2017 Page 2 of 7

[2] Delacruz met M.W. through a dating app sometime between August 2011 and 

June 2012. At the time, Delacruz was twenty years of age, and M.W. was 

fifteen. M.W. told Delacruz online that he was sixteen years old, but when 

Delacruz arrived at M.W.’s house in Hendricks County within the next few 

days, M.W. admitted he was fifteen. Delacruz engaged in sexual intercourse 

with M.W. and continued to have occasional sexual contact with M.W. until 

after M.W. turned sixteen.

[3] M.W. introduced Delacruz to A.B. via text message. Between May 1, 2012 

and August 31, 2012, Delacruz performed oral sex on A.B. in Hendricks 

County. A.B. was fifteen years old at the time.

[4] A.B. introduced Delacruz to E.B. A.B. and E.B. are twin siblings. Between 

August 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013, Delacruz had sexual intercourse with 

E.B., who was fifteen at the time, in Hendricks County.

[5] Finally, Delacruz met fourteen-year-old A.V. through a dating app. Delacruz 

had sex with A.V. at A.V.’s residence in Putnam County even though A.V. told 

him he was underage.

[6] In the current case, the State charged Delacruz with three counts of sexual 

misconduct with a minor (count 1 for M.W., count 2 for A.B., and count 4 for 

E.B.) and one count of child seduction (count 3, as to E.B.), all Class C 

felonies. The parties executed a plea agreement, pursuant to which Delacruz 

pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual misconduct with a minor. The State 

dismissed the count of child seduction. Further, the parties agreed the executed 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1705-CR-1014 | October 12, 2017 Page 3 of 7

portion of Delacruz’s sentence would be capped at twelve years. Finally, the 

State agreed to dismiss a pending case against Delacruz in Putnam County, 

where he was charged with sexual misconduct with A.V., if Delacruz admitted 

to his criminal conduct against A.V. in the current case.

[7] The court accepted the plea agreement. The court determined that Delacruz’s 

lack of a prior criminal history, his guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility, 

and his age at the time the crimes were committed were mitigating factors. The 

aggravating factors were that Delacruz committed uncharged misconduct with 

A.V., as well as the nature and circumstances of the offenses, particularly the 

approximate five-year age gap between Delacruz and his victims. The court 

further determined that the aggravating and mitigating circumstances balanced. 

As a result, the court sentenced Delacruz to four years with two years 

suspended on count one and sentenced Delacruz to four years on counts two 

and four, to be served consecutively, for an executed sentence of ten years, with 

an additional two years suspended to probation. This appeal followed.

[8] Delacruz claims his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offenses and his character because a greater proportion of his sentence should 

be suspended to probation. In general, sentencing decisions rest within the 

sound discretion of the trial court and are reviewed on appeal for an abuse of 

discretion. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 

N.E.2d 218 (2007). Nonetheless, even when a trial court imposes a sentence 

within its discretion, the Court retains constitutional authority to review and 

revise sentences. Ind. Const. art. 7, § 6. This constitutional authority is 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1705-CR-1014 | October 12, 2017 Page 4 of 7

implemented through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that we 

“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.”

[9] The principal role of sentencing review under Appellate Rule 7(B) is to attempt 

to leaven the outliers. Perry v. State, 78 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). The 

appellant bears the burden of demonstrating the sentence is inappropriate. Id. 

We may consider not only the aggravators and mitigators found by the trial 

court, but also any other factors appearing in the record. Walters v. State, 68 

N.E.3d 1097 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied.

[10] The advisory sentence is the starting point in determining the appropriateness of 

a sentence. At the time Delacruz committed his offenses, the advisory sentence 

for a Class C felony was four years, with a minimum sentence of two years and 

a maximum sentence of eight years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 (2005). The court 

sentenced Delacruz to four years, with two years suspended, for count one. 

The court further imposed the advisory sentence for counts two and four and 

ordered all sentences served consecutively for an aggregate executed sentence of 

ten years.

[11] The nature of the offense is found in the details and circumstances of the 

offenses and the defendant’s participation. Perry, 78 N.E.3d 1. Delacruz used 

dating apps to meet underage boys and had sex with them. He also used his 

victims to obtain introductions to other potential victims. Delacruz had ample 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1705-CR-1014 | October 12, 2017 Page 5 of 7

opportunity to end his criminal behavior but chose not to, resulting in him 

molesting the four victims discussed in this case. “Whether the counts involve 

one or multiple victims is highly relevant to the decision to impose consecutive 

sentences.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008).

[12] The harm to some of the victims will be long-lasting. A.B. testified at 

sentencing that he suffered from anxiety and depression due to Delacruz’s 

criminal conduct and had been in therapy since 2014. He is on multiple 

medications. Furthermore, A.B. stated he was having difficulty in forming 

genuine relationships with others. A.B.’s sibling E.B. reported that he has been 

diagnosed with “generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, 

panic disorder, and major depression.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 49. E.B. has been in 

counseling and on prescription medication for years. Delacruz’s molestation of 

E.B. also damaged E.B.’s ability to form and maintain social relationships. 

E.B. indicated at sentencing, some four years after the molestation, that he 

thought about Delacruz’s sexual abuse of him every day.

[13] Delacruz argues that he is not a predator, but it is difficult to describe his 

conduct here with any other term. He asked A.V., who he met while working 

as a substitute teacher, if A.V. knew any other underage boys. Further, 

Delacruz encouraged M.W. to introduce him to A.B., through whom he met

E.B. M.W. explained that Delacruz insinuated himself into M.W.’s social 

circle to meet other boys of M.W.’s age. The nature of his offenses alone 

justifies the consecutive advisory sentences imposed by the trial court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1705-CR-1014 | October 12, 2017 Page 6 of 7

[14] The character of the offender is found in what we learn of the offender’s life and 

conduct. Perry, 78 N.E.3d 1 (quotation omitted). Delacruz, who was twentyfive years old at the time of sentencing, had no prior criminal history. His lack 

of a history of convictions is undermined by the uncharged criminal conduct in 

the record, specifically his repeated molestations of M.W. until after M.W.

turned sixteen and his molestation of A.V.

[15] In addition, although Delacruz pleaded guilty, his guilty plea is entitled to 

minimal weight because he negotiated a much lower sentence than the 

maximum. He received only ten years executed when he could have received 

twenty-four years if maximum, consecutive sentences had been imposed. See 

Swain v. State, 870 N.E.2d 1058, 1060 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (guilty plea entitled 

to “little, if any, mitigating weight” if defendant receives some benefit).

[16] Delacruz argues that his relatively young age indicates sentence reduction is 

appropriate because he was not fully mature and had not yet fully developed an 

ability to make rational decisions. We cannot agree. Delacruz was 

approximately twenty years of age when he committed his offenses, which is 

not particularly young. Further, he committed his crimes over a period of at 

least a year, so he had ample time to reflect on his criminal behavior and end it.

[17] Finally, Delacruz argues he would receive more benefit from obtaining sex 

offender treatment and general therapy outside of prison rather than from the 

services provided by the Indiana Department of Correction. The appropriate 

question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, rather, the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1705-CR-1014 | October 12, 2017 Page 7 of 7

question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. Williams v. State, 

997 N.E.2d 1154 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Delacruz will be eligible for sex 

offender treatment in prison. In light of the tragic nature of Delacruz’s offenses 

and his uncharged misconduct, he has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is 

inappropriate.

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

[19] Judgment affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Robb, J., concur.