Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1612-CR-2777 | June 21, 2017 Page 1 of 10

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

R. Patrick Magrath

Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP

Madison, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Christina D. Pace

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Steven Joseph Rekowski,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

June 21, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

15A01-1612-CR-2777

Appeal from the Dearborn Circuit 

Court

The Honorable James D. 

Humphrey, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

15C01-1601-F1-001

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1612-CR-2777 | June 21, 2017 Page 2 of 10

Statement of the Case

[1] Steven Rekowski (“Rekowski”) appeals the sentence imposed after he pled

guilty to three counts of Level 1 felony child molesting,1three counts of Level 5 

felony child exploitation,2 and one count of Level 6 felony performing sexual 

conduct in the presence of a minor.3 Rekowski specifically argues that his 

sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and Rekowski’s 

character. Because Rekowski has failed to persuade us that his sentence is 

inappropriate, we affirm the sentence. 

[2] We affirm.

Issue

The sole issue for our review is whether Rekowski’s sentence is 

inappropriate.

Facts

[3] On December 31, 2015, Rekowski went to S.B.’s (“S.B.”) house to do some 

laundry. Rekowski and S.B. had known each other for eight or nine years. 

When Rekowski arrived at S.B.’s house, S.B. was getting ready to go in to work 

for an hour to do some paperwork. She planned to take her daughters, fouryear-old A.R. (“A.R”) and ten-year-old J.R. (“J.R.”) with her. When the two 

 

1

IND. CODE § 35-42-4-3.

2

I.C. § 35-42-4-4.

3

I.C. § 35-42-4-5.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1612-CR-2777 | June 21, 2017 Page 3 of 10

girls asked if they could stay home, Rekowski offered to watch them while S.B. 

was gone. When S.B. returned home about an hour later, Rekowski laughed 

and showed her a picture of A.R., who had fallen asleep against the wall in her 

room. Rekowski said he took the pictures “because it was funny how she fell 

asleep.” (Tr. 81).

[4] The following day, Rekowski and Stephanie Weaver (“Weaver”) stopped by 

S.B.’s house. Weaver told Rekowski to tell S.B. what he had done the night 

before. Rekowski told S.B. that “he [had taken] advantage of a situation,” and 

Weaver began showing S.B. photos and videos that she had found on 

Rekowski’s phone. (Tr. 77). The photos and videos showed Rekowski 

molesting A.R. and J.R. Specially, there were photos and videos of Rekowski 

placing his finger and tongue into A.R.’s vagina as well as photos and videos of 

Rekowski placing his penis into a sleeping or unconscious J.R.’s mouth. 

Rekowski subsequently ejaculated into J.R.’s mouth and then took pictures of 

J.R. with semen on her lips and face.

[5] After seeing the photos and videos, S.B. contacted the police, who took 

Rekowski to the police station for questioning. Rekowski admitted that he had 

molested A.R. and J.R. but insisted that the molestations were “a first-time 

thing.” (Ex. at 57). Police officers subsequently conducted a search of 

Rekowski’s apartment where they found muscle relaxing pills, children’s toys, 

sex toys, gels, lubricants, and female children’s underwear. The officers also 

found numerous multimedia devices, including cell phones and computers. 

Sergeant Matthew Simmons (“Sergeant Simmons”) from the Indiana State 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1612-CR-2777 | June 21, 2017 Page 4 of 10

Police Cyber Crimes Unit forensically examined eleven of the devices, which 

included 846,122 images and/or video files. Sergeant Simmons classified 

approximately 272,687 of those files. Ten percent of those files could be 

classified as child pornography, and 84 percent of the files could be classified as 

child erotica.4 Approximately 9,000 of the files were files frequently possessed 

by those involved in child pornography. Sergeant Simmons also located 

pictures and videos of Rekowski engaged in sexual acts with children.

[6] Police officers discovered that two of the children in the photographs were 

eight-year-old M.F. (“M.F.”) and seven-year-old A.B. (“A.B.”), who are the 

daughters of T.B. (“T.B.”). T.B. and her husband had taken Rekowski “into 

[their] home when he was down on his luck, [they] fed and housed him and 

helped him to [the] best of [their] ability [even though they] didn’t have much 

[themselves] and . . . asked for nothing in return.” (Tr. 90). Pictures and videos 

found on Rekowski’s phone showed him playing a “game” where he held M.F. 

upside down and coerced her to pull down his pants, grab and touch his erect 

penis, and place it in her mouth. (Tr. 58). A.B. watched the “game,” and in 

the video, both of the girls were laughing. (Tr. 58). There were additional 

photographs on the multimedia devices that revealed Rekowski molesting 

unidentified children.

 

4 Child erotica “can be classified as things that don’t go into the realm of child pornography such as modeling 

pictures of children in lingerie, bathing suits, demeanor such as that or images that are showing a naked 

child, however, it is unable to determine what their age might be.” (Tr. 103).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1612-CR-2777 | June 21, 2017 Page 5 of 10

[7] The State charged Rekowski with multiple offenses, and he eventually pled

guilty to three counts of Level 1 felony child molesting for molesting A.R., J.R.,

and M.F.; three counts of Level 5 felony child exploitation for acts involving 

A.R., J.R., and M.F.; and one count of Level 6 felony performing sexual 

conduct in the presence of a minor. At the sentencing hearing, S.B. testified as 

follows regarding the impact of the molestations on her family:

After this happened I nearly lost my job from staying home 

because if they weren’t at work with me I didn’t go to work. . . . 

Then I eventually just quit because they just couldn’t be there all 

the time, every day. I just don’t trust anybody to be around them 

anymore. . . . It’s the worst thing that could ever happen. I feel 

like a terrible person that . . . I had to run to work for an hour 

and something like this could have happened. I felt like [it was] 

my fault that I did something wrong for letting somebody I 

kn[e]w for eight (8) or nine (9) years sit with them for an hour.

(Tr. 82). In addition, the following letter from T.B. was read into the record of 

the sentencing hearing:

This monster molested my little girls, he did things I cannot even 

fathom . . . a grown man even thinking about doing to a child. 

He violated my babies. . . . They should be playing and enjoying 

life but instead they are drug from appointment to appointment 

to try and put those pieces back together again. This is not what 

a child should be doing or have to go through. They had their 

innocence ripped away from them for what? For this sick 

monster’s self-desires. He took their childhood away from them 

forever. My children have been through so much already that no 

child should ever have to go through. . . . 

(Tr. 90).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1612-CR-2777 | June 21, 2017 Page 6 of 10

[8] Also at the sentencing hearing, the State pointed out that Rekowski was facing 

a maximum sentence of one hundred seventy and one-half (170 1⁄2) years and 

that “he deserve[d] every day of this sentence.” (Tr. 160). The State further 

argued that “in [its] years of experience, [Rekowski was] probably the worst 

child molester that [it had] ever seen.” (Tr. 160). The State pointed out that 

Rekowski did not just molest the children, he photographed the molestations. 

Rekowski responded that he was not the “worst of the worst when the worst 

possible acts didn’t occur . . . .” (Tr. 165). According to Rekowski, there were 

some sexual acts that did not occur in this case that would have been “worse 

than what happened in this case.” (Tr. 164). 

[9] In its written sentencing order, the trial court found four aggravating 

circumstances. First, the trial court noted that Rekowski has a criminal history

that includes five felony convictions, eight misdemeanor convictions, and three 

probation violations. The trial court explained that both video and 

photographic evidence revealed that Rekowski committed sexual offenses

against the four victims in the case as well as five to ten additional children. 

Second, the trial court found that the nature and circumstances of the crimes

also constituted an aggravating factor. According to the trial court, the offenses

included children who were substantially younger than the statutory 

requirement to be under the age of fourteen for the enhancement to a Level 1 

felony. The trial court further explained that “[Rekowski’s] lack of respect and 

callousness towards these young children is appalling. [His] treatment of small 

children as sexual toys cannot be tolerated in a civilized society. It is hard to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1612-CR-2777 | June 21, 2017 Page 7 of 10

imagine a more disgusting display of human behavior.” (Sentencing Order at 

6). Third, the trial court found that the effects of the crime was also an 

aggravating factor. The trial court explained that the effect of the harm to the 

children may not be known for years; however, it was clear that the parents of 

the children had been emotionally devastated. Fourth, the trial court found that 

Rekowski’s future dangerousness was also an aggravating factor. According to 

the trial court, Rekowski’s actions showed that he was a clear, present, and 

continuing danger to children. The trial court considered Rekowski’s guilty 

plea to be a slight mitigating factor. 

[10] After reviewing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the trial court sentenced 

Rekowski to fifty (50) years for each of the Level 1 felony convictions; six (6) 

years for each of the Level 5 felony convictions; and two and one-half (2 1⁄2) 

years for the Level 6 felony conviction. The trial court further ordered all of the 

sentences to run consecutive to each other for a total executed sentence of onehundred and seventy and one-half (170 1⁄2) years. Rekowski now appeals his 

sentence.

Decision

[11] Rekowski’s sole argument is that his sentence is inappropriate. Indiana 

Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we may revise a sentence authorized by 

statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find that the 

sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character 

of the offender. The defendant bears the burden of persuading this Court that 

his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1612-CR-2777 | June 21, 2017 Page 8 of 10

2006). Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate turns on the “culpability 

of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and 

myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 

N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008).

[12] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge that 

the advisory sentence is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an 

appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. 

Here, Rekowski pleaded guilty to three Level 1 felonies, three Level 5 felonies, 

and one Level 6 felony. The sentencing range for a Level 1 felony is from 

twenty (20) to fifty (50) years, with an advisory sentence of thirty (30) years. 

I.C. § 35-50-2-5. The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is from one (1) to six 

(6) years, with an advisory sentence of three (3) years. I.C. § 35-50-2-6. The 

sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is from six (6) months to two and one-half 

(2 1⁄2) years, with an advisory sentence of one (1) year. I.C. § 35-50-2-7. The 

trial court sentenced Rekowski to the maximum sentence for each conviction 

and ordered the sentences to run consecutively, for a total executed sentence of 

one hundred and seventy and one-half (170 1⁄2) years. 

[13] With regard to the nature of the offenses, Rekowski offered to care for A.R. and 

J.R. while their mother went to work. When he got the young girls alone, 

Rekowski placed his tongue and finger into four-year-old A.R.’s vagina and 

took photos and videos of his actions. Rekowski also placed his penis in J.R.’s 

mouth, ejaculated, and then took pictures of his semen on J.R.’s face and 

mouth. In addition, Rekowski took photos and videos of these acts. Further, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1612-CR-2777 | June 21, 2017 Page 9 of 10

Rekowski abused the trust of friends who had given him a place to stay when 

he was “down on his luck” by playing sexual games with their seven- and eightyear-old daughters. (Tr. 190). Specifically, photos and videos showed 

Rekowski playing a “game” where he held M.F. upside down and coerced her 

to pull down his pants, grab and touch his erect penis, and place it in her 

mouth. (Tr. 58). M.F.’s sister A.B. watched the “game,” and in the video, both 

of the girls were laughing. (Tr. 58). While Rekowski claims that these 

instances of molestation were not the worst that could have occurred, we find 

that the self-preserved evidence of sexual abuse contradicts his self-serving 

argument. The nature of Rekowski’s offenses demonstrates the likelihood that 

the psychological damage to his victims will likely “be more devastating than 

physical injury. This is especially true of children of tender years when they are 

victimized in the manner described in this case.” Lasley v. State, 510 N.E.2d 

1340, 1342 (Ind. 1987). 

[14] With regard to his character, Rekowski has an extensive criminal history that 

includes five felony convictions, eight misdemeanor convictions, and three 

probation violations. Rekowski’s former contacts with the law have not caused 

him to reform himself. See Jenkins v. State, 909 N.E.2d 1080, 1086 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2009), trans. denied. In addition, Rekowski’s multi-media devices included 

child pornography and erotica, including images that he produced as he was 

molesting children. Rekowski further abused positions of trust with friends and 

neighbors by offering to care for their children and then molesting those 

children while they were in his care. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1612-CR-2777 | June 21, 2017 Page 10 of 10

[15] Given the multiple children molested here and after due consideration of the 

trial court’s decision, Rekowski has failed to persuade this Court that his 

sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and the character 

of the offender. See, e.g., Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852, 857 (Ind. 2003) (noting 

that “when the perpetrator commits the same offense against two victims, 

enhanced and consecutive sentences seem necessary to vindicate the fact that 

there were separate harms and separate acts against more than one person”). 

See also Mitchem v. State, 685 N.E.2d 671, 680 (Ind. 1997) (explaining that the

“basis for the gross impact which consecutive sentences may have is the moral 

principle that each separate and distinct criminal act deserves a separately 

experienced punishment”).

[16] Affirmed.

May, J., and Brown, J., concur.