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

Thomas C. Allen

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Richard C. Webster

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Razi S. Razi,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

November 16, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

02A03-1601-CR-103

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court.

The Honorable John F. Surbeck, Jr., 

Judge.

Cause No. 02D06-1505-FA-9

Barteau, Senior Judge

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1601-CR-103 | November 16, 2016 Page 1 of 8
Statement of the Case

[1] Razi S. Razi appeals his convictions of child molesting as a Class A felony1and 

child molesting as a Class C felony.2

 We affirm.

Issue

[2] The sole issue on appeal is whether the State presented sufficient evidence to 

support Razi’s convictions.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] The facts most favorable to the verdict follow. Razi and John were friends 

before coming to this country. Razi came to the United States a few years 

before John, and, after John and his family arrived here, they reconnected with 

Razi in Fort Wayne. The men and their families spent a lot of time together, 

and John and his children even lived with Razi and his family while they were 

in the process of obtaining housing. John considered Razi to be a member of 

his family and gave Razi a key to his house. M.M. is John’s daughter.

[4] In 2009, when M.M. was nine years old, she fell asleep on the couch watching 

a movie with Razi, who was visiting. M.M. later awoke in pain to find Razi 

underneath her with his penis inserted into her vagina.

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a) (2007).

2 Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1601-CR-103 | November 16, 2016 Page 2 of 8

 
[5] A few years later when M.M. was in the seventh grade, she was at home sitting 

on the couch watching a movie. Razi came to the house, approached M.M., 

and touched her breasts, exclaiming that her breasts were “so soft.” Tr. p. 203. 

M.M. slapped Razi’s hand. When Razi attempted to touch M.M.’s breasts 

again, she got up from the couch and went to her room.

[6] In December 2014, people were gathered at John’s home to celebrate the birth 

of another daughter. Razi was one of the guests at this celebration. M.M. was 

in the kitchen washing dishes, and her older sister, Anjelani, was sitting at the 

kitchen table. Razi came into the kitchen, slapped M.M.’s “left booty,” and 

said to M.M., “when can I f*** you again?” Id. at 214. At trial, Anjelani 

testified that she witnessed Razi touch M.M. “behind her thigh” and say, 

“when am I going to be able to tap that again?” Id. at 279.

[7] Following this incident, M.M. told her basketball coach about the 2009 and 

2014 incidents, and an investigation was launched. As a result of the 

investigation, Razi was charged with one count of child molesting as a Class A 

felony, one count of child molesting as a Class C felony, and one count of child 

solicitation as a Level 5 felony.3 Following a jury trial, Razi was found guilty of 

all charges. The trial court merged the Class C felony child molesting into the 

Class A felony child molesting and sentenced Razi to an aggregate sentence of 

3 Ind. Code § 35-42-4-6 (2014).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1601-CR-103 | November 16, 2016 Page 3 of 8

 
thirty-three years. On appeal, Razi’s only challenge is to his convictions for

child molesting.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Razi contends that the record does not reveal substantial evidence of probative 

value of his guilt, specifically challenging M.M.’s credibility. When we review 

a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence 

nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Sandleben v. State, 29 N.E.3d 126, 131 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. Instead, we consider only the evidence most 

favorable to the verdict and any reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. If 

there is substantial evidence of probative value from which a reasonable factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the 

verdict will not be disturbed. Labarr v. State, 36 N.E.3d 501, 502 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2015).

[9] Here, in order to obtain a conviction for child molesting as a Class A felony, the 

State must have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Razi, a person at 

least twenty-one years of age, (2) with M.M., a child under fourteen years of 

age, (3) performed or submitted to sexual intercourse. See Ind. Code § 35-42-4-

3(a); Appellant’s App. p. 114. In addition, to establish the offense of child 

molesting as a Class C felony in this case, the State must have proved beyond a 

reasonable doubt that (1) Razi (2) with M.M., a child under fourteen years of 

age, (3) performed or submitted to fondling or touching of M.M. (4) with the 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1601-CR-103 | November 16, 2016 Page 4 of 8
intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either M.M. or Razi. See Ind. 

Code § 35-42-4-3(b); Appellant’s App. p. 116.

[10] The evidence at trial established that in 2009 M.M. was nine years old, and 

Razi was twenty-six or twenty-seven years old. At that time, Razi began to give 

M.M. special attention that he did not give to M.M.’s sisters. M.M., who was 

fifteen at the time of trial, testified that Razi would call her “his girlfriend” and 

buy her presents such as flowers and a ring that he told her was a promise ring. 

Tr. p. 186.

[11] M.M. further testified regarding a night in 2009 when she was having a 

sleepover with a few friends. Razi came to the house with a movie that he 

wanted them to watch with him. M.M. and one of her friends began watching 

the movie with Razi, and M.M.’s friend fell asleep. M.M. woke her friend and 

sent her upstairs to bed. M.M. continued to watch the movie but later fell 

asleep on the couch on her stomach. At some point, M.M. felt someone get 

underneath her and felt her pants coming off. She then felt something “go 

inside” her, and she woke up because she “felt so much pain.” Id. at 191, 196. 

M.M. clarified that the pain was caused by Razi putting his penis in her vagina. 

Razi told M.M. to “shhh” and tried to put his penis further inside her, but the 

pain increased so M.M. got up and went upstairs to bed because she did not 

know what to do. Id. at 192.

[12] M.M. testified that when she awoke the next morning there was blood on her 

sheets and on her body on her “front area.” Id. at 199. She showered, rinsed 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1601-CR-103 | November 16, 2016 Page 5 of 8
her sheets and hung them up, and put clean sheets on her bed. It was at this 

point that M.M. said she “didn’t know what to do” and that she “was starting 

to freak out” and that she “felt like [she] couldn’t say anything to nobody.” Id.

at 200. Later, M.M. told Anjelani that there had been an incident with Razi but 

that she was not to tell anyone.

[13] The jury also heard and saw M.M. testify as to the incidents when she was in 

seventh grade watching a movie at home and when she was washing dishes in 

December 2014. Anjelani testified that after Razi accosted M.M. in the kitchen 

in December 2014, M.M. asked Anjelani to stay close to her so that Anjelani 

could watch her and see what was really going on because M.M. felt 

intimidated by Razi.

[14] Additionally, M.M. testified that after the December 2014 incident she began 

having flashbacks of the 2009 incident. She stated that she was unable to focus 

on her schoolwork or on basketball and that things were building up inside of 

her until she could no longer hold it in. At that point, M.M. spoke to her 

basketball coach about the incidents of 2009 and 2014. In doing so, M.M. was 

upset and crying and told her coach that her parents already knew of the 

incidents because she did not want the coach to tell her parents. She testified 

that she just needed to tell someone because she could not keep it to herself any 

longer. M.M.’s basketball coach informed school officials who called child 

protective services (CPS). When CPS first interviewed M.M., she denied 

everything because she did not want to upset her dad or cause problems in her 

dad’s relationship with Razi. At some point, John was informed of the 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1601-CR-103 | November 16, 2016 Page 6 of 8
allegations, and, during a meeting at school with John, M.M., and school 

officials, M.M. eventually admitted to John that Razi had molested her. At a 

second CPS interview, M.M. again stated that Razi had molested her.

[15] Based upon her allegations, M.M. was examined by a sexual assault nurse 

examiner (SANE). However, because it had been several years since the 

molestation, no evidence was collected and no injuries were found. The SANE 

testified that the fact that M.M.’s exam results were normal did not mean M.M. 

was not being truthful about the incident. She explained that although M.M.

stated she had bleeding at the time of the event, the female sex organ is a mucus 

membrane that heals very quickly. She further testified that ninety to ninetyfive percent of pediatric patients have normal genital exams.

[16] In addition, Detective Pfeiffer, a detective specializing in child sexual assault 

and abuse cases for the Fort Wayne Police Department, investigated the case. 

Detective Pfeiffer testified that it is uncommon for a child to disclose abuse 

immediately and that some children never tell while others wait days, weeks, or 

even years to tell. Detective Pfeiffer also stated that disclosure of child sexual 

assault is best described as a “process” that can be “bumpy.” Id. at 368.

[17] The gist of Razi’s argument is that M.M.’s testimony is not believable because 

“[i]t is not probable” that a nine-year-old would suffer an injury that caused her 

genitalia to bleed and not tell her parents; the acts of hiding her injuries and 

cleaning her bedding are “highly inconsistent with a 9-year-old child’s mental 

capabilities;” no one testified to seeing M.M. clean her sheets or saw them 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1601-CR-103 | November 16, 2016 Page 7 of 8
drying; no one testified to noticing a change in M.M.’s behavior toward Razi; 

M.M. denied the incident to school officials and CPS; and the lack of scarring 

or genitalia injury supports Razi’s claim of innocence. Appellant’s Br. pp. 10, 

11.

[18] Razi’s claims are merely a request for us to reweigh the evidence and judge the 

credibility of the witnesses, which we will not do. See Sandleben, 29 N.E.3d at 

131. Moreover, we are mindful that the trier of fact is entitled to determine 

which version of the incident to credit, Schmid v. State, 804 N.E.2d 174, 179 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied, and a conviction for child molesting may rest 

solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of the victim. Rose v. State, 36 

N.E.3d 1055, 1061 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). The evidence here was sufficient to 

establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Razi committed the offenses of child 

molesting.

Conclusion

[19] For the reasons stated, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence 

to support Razi’s convictions of child molesting, as a Class A felony, and child 

molesting, as a Class C felony.

[20] Affirmed.

Crone, J., and Bradford, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1601-CR-103 | November 16, 2016 Page 8 of 8