Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1608-CR-1778 | October 5, 2017 Page 1 of 13

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

David W. Stone IV

Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Matthew B. MacKenzie

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Michael French,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

October 5, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

48A02-1608-CR-1778

Appeal from the Madison Circuit 

Court

The Honorable David A. Happe, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

48C04-1511-FA-1874

48C04-1511-FC-2003

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1608-CR-1778 | October 5, 2017 Page 2 of 13

[1] Michael French appeals his convictions for two counts of Class A Felony Child 

Molesting,1 one count of Class B Felony Incest,2three counts of Class C Felony

Incest,3 and five counts of Class C Felony Child Molesting.4 French argues that 

the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever and that the sentence 

imposed by the trial court was erroneous and inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offenses and his character. Finding no error, we affirm. 

Facts

[2] French is the father of K.F., born in July 1995; A.F., born in February 1999;

H.F., born in July 2001; and C.F., born in December 2007. All the girls are 

half-sisters except for A.F. and H.F., who share the same parents. While 

growing up, K.F. lived predominantly with her mother, though she frequently

saw and spent overnights with French. H.F. also lived predominantly with her 

mother, though she would visit French on weekends. The events in question 

occurred between July 23, 2001, and August 16, 2013, in several different 

residences. 

[3] The first incident took place in July 2001, when K.F. was six years old, while 

she was visiting French’s Alexandria trailer. K.F. awoke early one morning to 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a). All the charged offenses occurred before the criminal code revision in 2014. 

Accordingly, all charged offenses are under the prior code sections. 

2

Ind. Code § 35-46-1-3(a).

3

I.C. § 35-42-4-3(b).

4

I.C. § 35-46-1-3(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1608-CR-1778 | October 5, 2017 Page 3 of 13

discover French rubbing her bare genitals with his foot. K.F. testified that while 

rubbing her, French was holding H.F. (an infant) while then-toddler A.F. stood 

next to him. French asked K.F. if she would like to be woken up like that every 

morning and, although she replied in the negative, he continued to touch K.F.’s 

bare genitals with his hands on numerous other occasions.

[4] The incidents escalated when K.F. was ten years old while she was visiting 

French’s Elwood home. At this residence, K.F. slept by herself downstairs. On 

one occasion, K.F. woke up in the middle of the night to discover French sitting 

at the edge of her bed, attempting to pull her to the edge of the bed. After 

overcoming his daughter’s resistance, French undressed her and performed oral 

sex on her. K.F. testified that this happened on several other occasions, along 

with continued touching and rubbing of her genitals. K.F. also testified that 

around this time, French began providing her alcohol and that, at some point,

he convinced her to take two pills for her anxiety. 

[5] French’s actions again escalated at his Frankton trailer when K.F. was thirteen. 

K.F. awoke on the floor, without her pants, while French was on top of her. 

French inserted his penis into her vagina, and after K.F. began to yell, he 

covered her mouth to prevent her from waking others in the trailer. In total, 

K.F. estimated that French had intercourse with her five to six times over a 

three-year period. Additionally, K.F. testified that French never wore condoms 

and that he ejaculated at least once.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1608-CR-1778 | October 5, 2017 Page 4 of 13

[6] When K.F. turned fifteen and entered high school, she was living full-time at

French’s Washington Street house to gain more independence and because of 

disagreements with her mother. By this point, French regularly gave her

alcohol. K.F. testified that she drank in part because it “numbed” her and that 

she was drinking “[a] lot.” Tr. Vol. II p. 167-68. When K.F. was sixteen,

French challenged her and his then-wife to a drinking contest on a school night, 

during which K.F. consumed at least thirteen shots of whiskey—enough to

make K.F. vomit and cause his wife to pass out. French then removed K.F.’s 

pants and had intercourse with her. 

[7] French’s acts were not limited to K.F. H.F., his third daughter, is 

approximately six years younger than K.F. When H.F. was seven and visiting 

the Elwood house, French began to touch her in a similar fashion to her older 

half-sister. He would wake her up by rubbing her genitals with his hands, both 

outside and inside her clothing.

[8] When H.F. was in the sixth grade and visiting her father at his Alexandria 

apartment, French removed her from a bed she was sharing with A.F. and took 

her to his bedroom. He put her in his bed and began rubbing her genitals, but 

she fled to the bathroom to cry and then went back to her room. French then 

returned to his daughters’ room, picked H.F. back up, and took her back to his 

room to rub her again. On another occasion in the same apartment, H.F. was 

sleeping on the downstairs couch and French rubbed her genitals on the outside 

and inside of her clothing.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1608-CR-1778 | October 5, 2017 Page 5 of 13

[9] Both K.F. and H.F. developed mental health issues over this time. K.F. 

became anxious and was afraid to be alone, while H.F.’s mother testified that 

H.F. began to isolate and cut herself. During this entire period, K.F. repeatedly 

told her father that his actions made her feel “gross,” that she wanted him to 

stop, and that she would tell on him if he did not stop. Id. at 181-82. French 

would respond by threatening that if he went to jail, she would never be able to 

see her sisters again and that it would ruin everyone’s lives. When K.F. turned 

twenty, her concern for her younger sisters finally drove her to tell family

members what had happened. Eventually, both K.F. and H.F. spoke to the 

police.

[10] French was arrested and charged in two separate causes in November 2015. 

With respect to K.F., he was charged with two counts of Class A felony child 

molesting, one count of Class B felony incest, two counts of Class C felony 

child molesting, and three counts of Class C felony incest. With respect to

H.F., he was charged with three counts of Class C felony child molesting. On 

February 4, 2016, the trial court granted the State’s motion for a joint trial. On 

May 2, 2016, French filed a motion to sever; following a hearing on May 16, 

2016, the trial court denied the motion. French renewed his motion for 

severance at the start of the trial, but the trial court denied the motion. 

[11] French’s jury trial took place from June 14 through 17, 2016; the jury ultimately 

found French guilty as charged. On July 11, 2016, the trial court sentenced 

French as follows: 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1608-CR-1778 | October 5, 2017 Page 6 of 13

• Forty years for each count of Class A felony child molesting, to be served 

consecutively;

• Eight years for two counts of Class C felony incest, to be served 

concurrently with the Class A felony sentence;

• Eight years for two counts of Class C felony child molesting, to be served 

concurrently with the Class A felony sentence; and

• Five years for each of the three remaining counts of Class C felony child 

molesting, to be served consecutively to each other and to the Class A 

felonies.

5

Therefore, French received an aggregate term of ninety-five years 

imprisonment. He now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Motion to Sever

[12] French first alleges that the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever the 

charges. Two or more offenses may be joined in the same charging information

in two instances: (1) if the offenses “are of the same or similar character,” or (2)

if the offenses “are based on the same conduct or on a series of acts connected 

together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan.” Ind. Code § 35-34-1-

9(a). The standard of review for a motion to sever will vary by the reason the 

charges were joined:

Where the offenses have been joined solely because they are of the 

same or similar character, a defendant is entitled to severance as 

 

5 The sole count of Class B felony incest was merged with the first count of Class A felony child molesting. 

One of the counts of Class C felony incest was merged with the second count of Class A felony child 

molesting.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1608-CR-1778 | October 5, 2017 Page 7 of 13

a matter of right. Ind. Code § 35–34–1–11(a) (2008). The trial 

court thus has no discretion to deny such a motion, and we will 

review its decision de novo. Jackson v. State, 938 N.E.2d 29, 36 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2010). But where the offenses have been joined 

because the defendant’s underlying acts are connected together, 

we review the trial court’s decision for [error]. Craig v. State, 730 

N.E.2d 1262, 1265 (Ind. 2000). 

Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1264 (Ind. 2015) (emphasis original). “To 

determine whether offenses warrant joinder [when the offenses were joined 

because the underlying acts were connected together], we ask whether the 

operative facts establish a pattern of activity beyond mere satisfaction of the 

statutory elements.” Id. at 1266.

[13] The trial court found that the offenses were properly joined and French was not 

entitled to severance because French’s underlying acts were connected. 

Specifically, the trial court noted that: (1) there was a common familial 

relationship; (2) there was an overlap in time between the offenses; (3) there 

was a common narrative linking the offenses against one victim to another; and 

(4) there was an “interconnected investigation.” Tr. Vol. II p. 21-22. 

[14] Initially, we note that the charges were clearly connected by French’s

exploitation of his position of trust as a father and a custodial adult. See Ennik 

v. State, 40 N.E.3d 868, 876 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Pierce, 29 N.E.3d at 

1266) (“It is well established that offenses can ‘be linked by a defendant’s efforts 

to take advantage of his special relationship with the victims.’”), trans. denied; see

also Turnpaugh v. State, 521 N.E.2d 690, 692 (Ind. 1988) (finding child 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1608-CR-1778 | October 5, 2017 Page 8 of 13

molestation charges were sufficiently connected where victims were sisters who 

were overnight guests); Pierce, 29 N.E.3d at 1266-67 (finding that causes at issue 

were connected by defendant’s “exploitation” of his position of trust).

[15] Furthermore, the incidents were connected by French’s victims, his method,

and an overlap in time. See Pierce, 29 N.E.3d at 1266 (finding that the 

defendant’s actions were also connected “by his victims, his method, and his 

motive”). French’s victims were both his biological daughters. French’s 

methods were largely identical—he usually initiated his assaults by rubbing his 

daughters’ genitalia while they were sleeping. Finally, the crimes overlapped in 

location, at least in part, because K.F. and H.F. both testified that they were 

molested at the Elwood house. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in 

denying French’s motion to sever.

II. Sentencing

A. Aggravating Factors

[16] French argues that the trial court erred because it found aggravating factors that 

were not supported by the record. In reviewing the trial court’s finding of 

aggravating and mitigating factors, we note that “[s]entencing decisions are 

within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Coy v. State, 999 N.E.2d 937, 946 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2013). We will reverse only “if the decision is ‘clearly against 

the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the 

reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.’” Id.

(quoting Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007)). A trial court may
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1608-CR-1778 | October 5, 2017 Page 9 of 13

err if it enters or finds aggravating factors that are not supported by the record 

or if “the sentencing statement omits reasons that are clearly supported by the 

record and advanced for consideration . . . .” Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 490-91. 

[17] In the present case, the sentencing order listed five aggravating factors: 

• “Multiple victims involved,”

• “Number of counts for which the jury found the defendant responsible,”

• The period of time “over which this abuse occurred,” 

• “Facilitated the commission of the crimes by giving at least one of the 

victims drugs and alcohol,” and

• “Abused position of trust.”

Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 26-29. The record from the sentencing hearing also 

reveals that the trial court considered French’s threats to K.F. as an aggravating 

factor and his limited criminal history as a mitigating factor. French contends 

that the record does not support the findings that he threatened H.F. or that he 

gave one of his daughters drugs and alcohol in the facilitation of his crimes.

[18] Assuming solely for argument’s sake that the trial court erred in the 

consideration of the challenged factors, we cannot say that French would be 

entitled to resentencing. See, e.g., Sargent v. State, 875 N.E.2d 762, 769 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2007) (“If the factors are not supported by the record . . . then remand for 

resentencing may be the appropriate remedy if we cannot say with confidence 

that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence had it properly 

considered reasons that enjoy support in the record.”). Here, the trial court 

gave great weight to several aggravating factors that are amply supported by the 

evidence and are not challenged by French: (1) the abuse was prolonged and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1608-CR-1778 | October 5, 2017 Page 10 of 13

occurred over the span of approximately twelve years; (2) French abused 

multiple victims; (3) there were so many counts for which the jury found 

French responsible; and (4) French victimized his own daughters, thereby 

abusing a position of trust and power.

[19] Considering the gravity and the number of unchallenged aggravating factors 

and the lack of any compelling mitigating factors, we believe that the trial court 

would have imposed the same sentence even if the challenged factors had been 

omitted. We decline to reverse on this basis. 

B. Appropriateness

[20] Finally, French contends that his sentence should be amended because it was 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Indiana 

Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we may revise a sentence 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.” We must “conduct [this] review with substantial deference . . . to 

the trial court’s decision—since the ‘principal role of [our] review is to attempt 

to leaven the outliers,’ and not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ sentence . . . .” 

Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Chambers v. State, 989 

N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. 2013)) (internal citations omitted).

[21] French was sentenced on nine convictions. The sentencing options and 

outcomes for each conviction are as follows: 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1608-CR-1778 | October 5, 2017 Page 11 of 13

• He was convicted of two Class A felonies. For each of these convictions, 

he faced a sentence of twenty to fifty years, with an advisory term of 

thirty years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4(a). He received a forty-year term for 

each offense, to be served consecutively. 

• He was sentenced on seven Class C felonies. For each of these 

convictions, he faced a sentence of two to eight years, with an advisory 

term of four years. I.C. § 35-50-2-6(a). For four of the counts—those 

corresponding to his crimes against K.F.—the trial court imposed four 

eight-year sentences to be served concurrently with the second Class A 

felony. For the final three counts—those corresponding to his crimes 

against H.F.—the trial court imposed three five-year sentences, to be 

served consecutively to each other and to the Class A felonies.

Thus, the trial court imposed an aggregate term of ninety-five years. Had the 

trial court imposed maximum, fully consecutive terms on all counts, French 

would have received an aggregate term of 156 years imprisonment.

[22] With respect to the nature of French’s offenses, French intentionally and 

repeatedly victimized his daughters, beginning when they were as young as six 

and seven years old, for more than a decade. French exploited his position of 

trust as a father and an overnight custodian on numerous occasions and against 

multiple victims—readily distinguishing these facts from the caselaw he cites. 

See Hamilton v. State, 955 N.E.2d 723, 727 (Ind. 2011) (stating that a “harsher 

sentence is also more appropriate when the defendant has violated a position of 

trust that arises from a particularly close relationship between the defendant and 

the victim”). Further, despite K.F.’s pleas for him to stop on several occasions, 

French responded with threats and continued abuse. French’s actions have

already produced tangible consequences for K.F. and H.F., and they will 

almost certainly have long-term repercussions as they enter adulthood. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1608-CR-1778 | October 5, 2017 Page 12 of 13

[23] With respect to French’s character, he has been convicted of two misdemeanor 

traffic offenses: driving while suspended and an operating while intoxicated

charge on which he violated his probation. French argues that he is not the 

worst offender; however, it is undisputed that he did not receive the maximum 

term on any conviction to be served consecutively. E.g., Evans v. State, 725 

N.E.2d 850, 851 (Ind. 2000) (noting that maximum sentences are “generally

most appropriate for the worst offenders”). French also willingly exposed his 

other daughters to his crimes: K.F. testified that her then-toddler sister A.F. 

witnessed French rub K.F.’s genitals with his foot and that he did so while 

holding newborn H.F. Further, French admitted during cross-examination that

during the pendency of this matter, he told a friend that he hoped someone 

would kill the prosecutor, and he solicited his friend to “dig up dirt” on the 

prosecutor. Tr. Vol. IV p. 13-14.6 Finally, French does not deny that he

regularly provided K.F. with alcohol or that he encouraged her to consume it. 

Through his actions and words over the course of more than a decade, French 

has demonstrated that he shows little respect for the well-being of his daughters 

and an inability or unwillingness to conform his behavior to the rule of law.

[24] In sum, we do not find the sentence imposed by the trial court to be 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses or his character.

 

6 He also admitted to saying “I hope somebody kills them both[.]” Tr. Vol. IV p. 14. The State contends that 

French was referring to K.F. and H.F. French makes no mention of it in his brief. It is unclear in the record 

who French meant by “them.” Regardless, it does not shed a favorable light on his character.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1608-CR-1778 | October 5, 2017 Page 13 of 13

[25] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur.