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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

BRYAN M. TRUITT GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Bertig & Associates LLC Attorney General of Indiana

Valparaiso, Indiana

ANGELA N. SANCHEZ

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

ARTHUR GUTIERREZ, JR., )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 64A03-1309-CR-365

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE PORTER SUPERIOR COURT 

The Honorable William E. Alexa, Judge

Cause No. 64D02-1102-FA-1324

August 6, 2014

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

KIRSCH, Judge 
2

Following his trial by jury, Arthur Gutierrez, Jr., was convicted of child molesting

as a Class A felony.1 On appeal, Gutierrez raises the following restated issues:

I. Whether the State presented sufficient to support his conviction;

II. Whether his sentence is inappropriate based on the nature of the 

offense and the character of the offender; and 

III. Whether his classification as a credit restricted felon is an 

impermissible ex post facto punishment.

We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Gutierrez and B.R. began dating when B.R.’s daughter, T.J., was an infant. When 

T.J. was three years old, B.R. gave birth to Gutierrez’s son. The family lived in a series of 

homes, including a trailer on Sharon Boulevard. A fire occurred in that trailer which caused 

them to move out. At times B.R. left the children in Gutierrez’s care while she worked. 

When B.R. was at work, Gutierrez made T.J., who was between the ages of three 

and five years old at the time, perform oral sex on him on more than one occasion. He also 

rubbed T.J.’s vulva and buttocks with his erect penis and directed T.J. to masturbate him. 

These acts also occurred on more than one occasion. 

The sexual interaction between B.R. and Gutierrez ended when T.J. was six and 

one-half years old. B.R. subsequently became aware that allegations of inappropriate 

 

1 See Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a)(1). We note that, effective July 1, 2014, a new version of this child 

molesting statute was enacted. The felony class was changed to a felony level. The substance of the statute 

remained the same. Because Gutierrez committed his crime prior to July 1, 2014, we will apply the statute 

in effect at the time he committed his crime. 
3

touching had surfaced concerning Gutierrez and another child, S.S.2 B.R. took T.J. to see 

B.R.’s sister, (“Aunt”). T.J. had a close relationship with Aunt and would speak freely 

with her. Initially, T.J. denied that Gutierrez had touched her inappropriately. After further 

questioning by Aunt, T.J. disclosed the aforementioned acts. T.J. spoke with Aunt alone 

for fifteen to twenty minutes. 

B.R. and Aunt decided to file a police report. Aunt, Aunt’s husband, B.R., and T.J. 

spent several hours together that day searching for the correct law enforcement agency to 

take the report and then making the report. The next day, T.J. spoke with Connie Hicks, a 

forensic interviewer with the Department of Child Services.

The State charged Gutierrez with one count of Class A felony child molesting in 

relevant part as follows:

ARTHUR GUTIERREZ did, then and there, on or between the 1st day of 

February, 2005, and the 31st day of July, 2009, with a child under fourteen 

(14) years of age, knowingly or intentionally perform deviate sexual conduct 

with T.J.

Appellant’s App. at 30. A jury found Gutierrez guilty of the charge. 

At Gutierrez’s sentencing hearing, the trial court noted that Gutierrez maintained 

his innocence after his jury trial and that Gutierrez had not accepted responsibility for his 

conduct.3 The trial court sentenced Gutierrez to fifty years executed in the Department of 

Correction. The trial court also determined that Gutierrez is a credit restricted felon.

 

2 The State charged Gutierrez with one count of Class A felony child molesting involving S.S. 

Appellant’s App. at 14. Gutierrez’s trial on that charge resulted in a hung jury. Id. at 386.

3 The trial court’s written sentencing order listed these as separate aggravating circumstances. Id. 

at 375.
4

Gutierrez now appeals his conviction, his sentence, and his credit time classification. 

Additional facts will be added as necessary. 

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

I. Sufficiency of Evidence 

Our standard of reviewing claims of sufficiency of the evidence is well settled. We 

consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict.

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not reweigh the evidence or assess 

witness credibility. Id. We consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the fact-finder.

Id. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements 

of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. It is not necessary that the evidence 

overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Id. at 147. The evidence is sufficient 

if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Id. 

In order to prove that Gutierrez committed the offense of Class A felony child 

molesting, the State was required to prove that Gutierrez, who was at least twenty-one, 

performed deviate sexual conduct with T.J., who was under the age of fourteen, at the time. 

Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3-(a)(1). At trial, the State proceeded under the theory that Gutierrez 

had T.J. perform oral sex on him. Tr. at 455. That act qualifies as deviate sexual conduct 

for purposes of the child molesting statute. Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-94.4

A review of the evidence most favorable to the jury’s verdict was that Gutierrez was 

over twenty-one years old during the charged period. T.J. was between the ages of two 

 

4 At the time of Gutierrez’s conviction, deviate sexual conduct was defined at Indiana Code section 

35-41-1-9. The substance of the definition remains the same. 
5

and six years old during the same time period. T.J. testified that Gutierrez would make her 

place his “tiger”5in her mouth and move her head up and down. Tr. at 176-77. This 

evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Gutierrez had committed Class A felony 

child molesting against T.J.

On appeal, Gutierrez contends that this evidence was insufficient to support his 

conviction because T.J.’s testimony was “incredibly dubious” in light of what he argues 

was T.J.’s vague, uncorroborated, inherently improbable, and coerced testimony. 

Appellant’s Br. at 7-9. The incredible dubiosity rule is as follows:

If a sole witness presents inherently improbable testimony and there is a complete 

lack of circumstantial evidence, a defendant’s conviction may be reversed. This is 

appropriate only where the court has confronted inherently improbable testimony or 

coerced, equivocal, wholly uncorroborated testimony of incredible dubiosity. 

Application of this rule is rare and the standard to be applied is whether the 

testimony is so incredibly dubious or inherently improbable that no reasonable 

person could believe it. 

Love v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind. 2002) (citing Stephenson v. State, 742 N.E.2d 463, 

498 (Ind. 2001)); Bradford v. State, 675 N.E.2d 296, 300 (Ind. 1996)). 

Gutierrez urges us to overturn the jury’s verdict, claiming that T.J.’s testimony

lacked detail both as to the date of the offense and the specifics of the act. Appellant’s Br. 

at 9. However, the State was not required to prove a specific date in order to convict 

Gutierrez of child molesting. Barger v. State, 587 N.E.2d 1304, 1307 (Ind. 1992). T.J. 

provided a timeframe for the offense when she testified that Gutierrez had her perform acts

of oral sex on him in the trailer that burned down, tr. at 180-81, and, therefore, the offense 

 

5 “Tiger” was T.J.’s term for a penis. Tr. at 169. 
6

must have taken place after December of 2008 when T.J. had her fifth birthday. Tr. at 205, 

211-12. Moreover, T.J.’s testimony that Gutierrez put his “tiger” in her mouth was 

adequately detailed to sustain the conviction. Cf. Bear v. State, 772 N.E.2d 413, 424-25 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (upholding child molesting conviction where victim testified that 

defendant licked her “pooty”). 

Furthermore, the fact that T.J.’s testimony was uncorroborated by her younger 

brother or by physical evidence does not render her testimony incredibly dubious. It is 

well settled that the uncorroborated testimony of a child molesting victim is sufficient to 

support a conviction. Deaton v. State, 999 N.E.2d 452, 457 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citing 

Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230, 1239 (Ind. 2012), trans. denied). It is not improbable 

that T.J.’s brother could not corroborate T.J.’s version of events, as he was at most two 

years old when the offense occurred. In addition, evidence was presented at trial that it is 

unusual to find corroborating physical evidence if an exam is performed well after the 

offense occurred. Tr. at 340. 

Gutierrez’s contention that Aunt coerced T.J. into disclosing the offense is equally 

unavailing. The jury heard Gutierrez’s theory that Aunt had personal animosity against 

him, that she wanted to “crack” T.J., and that Aunt interrogated T.J. with leading questions 

until T.J. disclosed the offense. The State is correct when it argues on appeal that it was 

within the province of the jury to reject that theory. Appellee’s Br. at 7-9. We will not 

second guess the jury’s assessment of T.J.’s testimony. Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146. 
7

III. Sentencing

Gutierrez also contends that his fifty-year sentence is inappropriate. Article 7, 

Section 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorizes this court to independently review and 

revise a sentence imposed by the trial court. Neville v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1252, 1266 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. We may revise a sentence after careful review of the trial 

court’s decision if we conclude that the sentence is inappropriate based on the nature of the 

offense and the character of the offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). The reviewing court 

“must and should exercise deference to a trial court’s sentencing decision, both because 

Rule 7(B) requires us to give ‘due consideration’ to that decision and because we 

understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing 

decisions.” Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d 858, 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Further, “[t]he 

principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify 

some guiding principles for trial courts . . . but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result 

in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Under this rule, the 

burden is on the defendant to persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence is 

inappropriate. Neville, 976 N.E.2d at 1266. 

As to the nature of the offense, Gutierrez argues that, although T.J. testified that 

Gutierrez’s offense was part of an ongoing pattern of conduct, there was no evidence of 

how often he subjected T.J. to sexual abuse. Appellant’s Br. at 11. He also contends that 

the fact that it is not clear from the record that he had sexual intercourse with T.J. merits a 

reduction in this sentence. Id. We are not persuaded. There was ample evidence in the 

record that Gutierrez molested T.J. in the same manner as the charged offense on multiple 
8

occasions and that he molested T.J. in other ways more than once. Yet, Gutierrez was 

charged, convicted, and sentenced for only one offense. The fact that he was not convicted 

of having sexual intercourse with T.J. does not diminish the gravity of the instant offense. 

Furthermore, Gutierrez began dating B.R. when T.J. was an infant. He was the only 

father T.J. knew for a portion of her life. Gutierrez himself characterized T.J. as someone 

he “raised for years” and as “my daughter.” Appellant’s App. at 410. He committed his 

offense when he was in a position of trust with T.J. as her caregiver while B.R. was at 

work. Gutierrez was supposed to be caring for T.J.’s brother also when he abused T.J. As 

such, Gutierrez was in dereliction of his duty as caretaker to both children. T.J. was around 

four years old when Gutierrez started molesting her, an age significantly lower than 

necessary to prove the instant offense. I.C. § 35-42-4-3(a)(1). T.J. has acted out sexually 

with other children at home and at school. She has required counseling as a result of the 

instant offense and the ongoing abuse by Gutierrez. 

Regarding his character, Gutierrez reminds us of his positive character traits, 

including the fact that he has a relatively minor criminal record. Appellant’s Br. at 11-12. 

However, after Gutierrez was charged in the instant matter, the State filed new charges 

against him of invasion of privacy for violating no-contact orders as to S.S. and T.J. Those 

charges were pending at the time of his sentencing in the present case. Appellant’s App. at 

409. The fact that Gutierrez was charged with two new offenses while out on bond raises 

questions regarding the extent to which he is law-abiding despite his minor criminal record. 

Gutierrez also directs us to the fact that the trial court found his decision to take his 

case to trial and his protestations of innocence as aggravating factors. Appellant’s Br. at 
9

12. While we do not condone the trial court’s findings, we conclude that, given the 

evidence of other offenses against T.J., his position as father figure and caretaker to T.J., 

and the extreme youth of the victim, Gutierrez has failed to show that his fifty-year sentence 

is inappropriate in regard to either the nature of the crime or his character. 

IV. Credit Time

Gutierrez argues that the trial court violated ex post facto principles when it 

classified him as a credit restricted felon.6 Appellant’s Br. at 11-14. A “credit restricted 

felon” is an offender who has been convicted of child molesting involving sexual 

intercourse or sexual deviate conduct when the offender is over the age of twenty-one and 

the victim is under the age of twelve. Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-72.

7

 Such an offender earns 

one day of credit time for every six days the offender is confined pre- and post-trial, 

meaning that the credit restricted felon serves eighty-five percent of his sentence. Ind. 

Code § 35-50-6-3(d) (2008); Boling v. State, 982 N.E.2d 1055, 1058-59 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2013). 

The United States Constitution and the Indiana Constitution both prohibit ex post 

facto laws. U.S. Const. art. I, § 10; Ind. Const. art. I, § 24. A law violates the ex post facto

prohibition if it is applied to events occurring before its enactment. Paul v. State, 888 

N.E.2d 818, 825-26 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. Accordingly, an offender may 

 

6 Gutierrez points to no legal authority for his argument that the jury or the trial court was required 

to make specific findings regarding the date of the offense in order for his credit restricted felon status to 

be valid. Therefore, we find this issue to be waived. Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). Likewise, Gutierrez 

characterized his Blakely-style claim as “an aside” which was unsupported by legal authority until he filed 

his Reply Brief. Appellant’s Br. at 14. Therefore, we do not address that claim. App. R. 46(A)(8)(a). 

7 Formerly Indiana Code section 35-41-1-5.5.
10

only be classified as a credit restricted felon if he was convicted for an offense that occurred 

on or after the effective date of the statute, July 1, 2008. Upton v. State, 904 N.E.2d 700, 

705-06 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. 

Gutierrez contends that he was improperly classified as a credit restricted felon 

because the evidence at trial showed that he committed the instant offense before the 

enactment of the credit restricted felon statute. Appellant’s Br. at 14-15. The State charged 

Gutierrez with committing the offense between the dates of February 1, 2005, and July 31, 

2009. Appellant’s App. at 30. As in other matters wherein we examine the sufficiency of 

the evidence, we will consider only the evidence in the record and reasonable inferences 

therefrom that support the trial court’s credit time determination. See Drane, 867 N.E.2d 

146-47.

T.J. was born on December 9, 2003. Tr. at 205. T.J. testified that she had to use 

her mouth on Gutierrez’s “tiger” when she lived in the trailer that burned down. Tr. 180-

81. T.J. turned five just before the family moved to a trailer on Sharon Boulevard. Id. 211-

12. The family lived in that trailer for one and one-half years until the trailer burned. Id.

at 212. T.J.’s fifth birthday would have been on December 9, 2008. Thus, the family’s 

entire occupancy of the trailer that burned occurred after July 1, 2008, the effective date of 

the credit restricted felon statute, and so the offense must have occurred after that date. 

The trial court’s credit time determination did not constitute an impermissible ex post facto

law. 

Affirmed. 

MAY, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.