Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2454 | March 19, 2019 Page 1 of 9

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

Cara Schaefer Wieneke

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Justin F. Roebel

Supervising Deputy Attorney 

General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Michael Lewis,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

March 19, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2454

Appeal from the Henry Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Bob A. Witham, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

33C01-1612-F1-3

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2454 | March 19, 2019 Page 2 of 9

[1] Michael Lewis appeals his sentence for two counts of child molesting. Lewis 

raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether his sentence is 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Between October 1, 2015, and October 31, 2016, Lewis, born on Novemember 

13, 1971, knowingly performed sexual conduct by licking the vagina of K.D., 

who was born on December 17, 2007, and was his stepson’s daughter. During 

the same period, he knowingly performed fondling or touching of K.D. when 

she was eight years old with the intent to arouse or satisfy his sexual desires. 

[3] On December 5, 2016, the State charged Lewis with six counts under Ind. Code 

§ 35-42-4-3,

1 namely: Count I, child molesting as a a level 1 felony; Count II, 

child molesting as a level 1 felony; Count III, child molesting as a level 4 

felony; Count IV, child molesting as a level 1 felony; Count V, child molesting 

as a level 1 felony; and Count VI child molesting as a level 4 felony. On July 

19, 2018, Lewis and the State entered into a plea agreement pursuant to which 

 

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a) provides in relevant part that a “person who, with a child under fourteen (14) years 

of age, knowingly or intentionally performs or submits to sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct . . .

commits child molesting,” a “Level 1 felony if . . . it is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years 

of age.” Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b) provides in part that a “person who, with a child under fourteen (14) years 

of age, performs or submits to any fondling or touching, of either the child or the older person, with intent to 

arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the older person, commits child molesting, a level 

4 felony.” 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2454 | March 19, 2019 Page 3 of 9

he agreed to pled guilty to Counts II and III,

2 with sentencing to be determined 

by the court. 

[4] At the sentencing hearing on September 11, 2018, Lewis stated, “I have to go 

pay for what I have done and I am going to.” Id. at 17. K.D.’s father testified 

that K.D. was born on December 17, 2007, and answered affirmatively when 

asked whether, “when these things happened,” they occurred at Lewis’s 

residence while Lewis and K.D.’s grandmother had “care and custody and 

control” of her and were “looking after her and those things.” Id. at 18. He 

answered affirmatively when asked whether, after she disclosed what Lewis had 

been doing, she went to counseling or saw a counselor or a therapist and 

indicated that she was still doing that. When asked to describe what effect “all 

of this” had on K.D., he stated:

She has built up [a] barrier. She has a hard time getting close to 

people now. As far as mine and her relationship it’s kind of hard 

for both of us. As a father you are supposed to protect her and I 

failed. Someone that we thought we could trust and still to this 

day I struggle with that bond. I can’t get the strength to talk to 

her.

 

2 On August 9, 2018, the court issued an order granting the State’s motion to amend information that it had 

filed the same day. Count II, which originally charged that Lewis “did knowingly perform other sexual 

conduct with K.D. . . . by inserting his finger in K.D.’s vagina,” was amended to state that Lewis “did 

knowingly perform other sexual conduct with K.D. . . . by licking K.D.’s vagina.” Appellant’s Appendix 

Volume II at 16, 68. At the September 11, 2018 hearing, the court asked Lewis’s counsel whether he had a 

chance to review the amended information with Lewis, and counsel indicated that they had reviewed it in 

person and had no objection. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2454 | March 19, 2019 Page 4 of 9

Id. at 19. He indicated that he had been “pretty adamant on 36 years” in 

response to being asked whether he had given any thought as to what type of 

sentence he would like Lewis to have. Id. 

[5] The PSI states, in the official version of the present offense section, “See 

Charging Information and Affidavit for probable cause.” Appellant’s Appendix 

Volume 2 at 81. An affidavit for probable cause submitted on December 5, 

2016, states that K.D.’s grandmother, who was Lewis’s wife and had 

guardianship over K.D. and her sister, H.D., advised that she needed to make a 

report regarding K.D., that K.D. had been been going to counseling, and that 

K.D. “had told her that her Papaw, [Lewis], touched her in her vaginal area.” 

Id. at 21. The affidavit indicates that Amanda Wilson, Director of the JACY 

House, conducted a forensic interview of K.D. It states that K.D. disclosed 

that: 

[K.D.’s grandmother,] H.D., and K.D. live together. K.D. said 

she visits her father . . . almost every day . . . .

K.D. said she had been touched in “not ok” places before. She 

further said “the front one by Papaw.” K.D. said Papaw was 

putting his fingers there (indicating the vagina on the illustration 

on the board) and he licked it and wouldn’t quit, so she kept

rolling away and she almost fell off of the bed and he (Papaw) 

wouldn’t quit. . . .

K.D. identified “Papaw” [as Lewis]. K.D. said this has 

happened more than once, she stated it had occurred at Papaw’s 

house . . . .

K.D. said one time when [K.D.’s grandmother] was at home she 

was sleeping in Papaw’s room and she kept rolling away because 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2454 | March 19, 2019 Page 5 of 9

he kept on touching her in “the bad spot.” He kept on touching 

her with his finger and she kept rolling away and rolled off of the 

bed “and he still wouldn’t leave me alone.” K.D. was getting up 

to go get water and she layed [sic] on the floor. . . .

Id. at 22-23. 

[6] The affidavit indicates that Lewis was interviewed on December 2, 2016, that 

he initially denied any wrongdoing or inapropriate touching of any type “for a 

lengthy period of time in the interview,” and that at some point in the interview 

Lewis “stated that he was going to be honest and tell . . . what had happened.” 

Id. at 25. It states that Lewis “began by saying ‘it started as a game’,” described

throughout the interview “K.D. as being the initiator of the sexual activity and 

claimed it was about her, and not himself,” and confessed that “on several 

occasions there were sexual and inappropriate contact which he estimated to be 

more than 5 times, and less than 10 times.” Id. It further states: 

Lewis said that he was never the aggressor. He explained the 

“game” he claimed that he and K.D. played in the bed. . . . 

Lewis said he wasn’t a sick pedophile type of guy, and it got out 

of hand. Lewis admits to touching her “clit.” . . . .

Lewis said he believes that K.D. enjoyed this and that is why it 

had happened after the first time. Lewis said “because she 

enjoyed it.”

Id. at 25-26.

[7] The trial court found that Lewis was in positions of trust and of having care, 

custody, and control of K.D. After finding that K.D. was eight or nine when 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2454 | March 19, 2019 Page 6 of 9

the offenses occurred, the court indicated that it could “give that a little bit extra 

of an aggravator factor in this case.” Transcript Volume II at 27. It found that 

Lewis had a prior criminal history and that he accepted responsibility for the 

commission of the offenses in this case and expressed remorse. At some point, 

the court further noted that it “was struck” by Lewis’s earlier comment that he 

had to pay for what he had done, and stated:

The problem is trying to come up with a payment for that. I

don’t that [sic] there is any payment that you can make for the 

damages that have been caused in this case to everyone involved. 

Not just to the victim K.D., to her dad, her family, your family, 

everyone is paying a price for this — the actions that you have 

admitted to today that you have done.

Id. at 28. The court sentenced Lewis to forty-five years for his conviction of 

child molesting as a level 1 felony and ten years for his conviction of child 

molesting as a level 4 felony and ordered the sentences to be served 

consecutively. 

Discussion

[8] The issue is whether Lewis’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of 

the offenses and his character. Ind. 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.” Under this rule, the 

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

sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2454 | March 19, 2019 Page 7 of 9

[9] Lewis argues that a fifty-five year executed sentence in prison is a de facto life 

sentence and points in support to his age and “reduced life expectancy due to 

having Hepatitis C.” Appellant’s Brief at 9. Regarding the nature of the 

offenses, he acknowledges that the crimes he committed were heinous and that 

he betrayed the trust of his family members by “violating his young 

granddaughter,” but contends that he did not “beat, wound, or otherwise 

severely brutalize the victim beyond that which was inherent in the commission

of the crimes” and that K.D. did not suffer “particularly aggravated brutality” 

at his hands. Id. at 7-8. Regarding his character, he contends that he saved the 

State time and the expense of having to go to trial, relieved K.D. of testifying in 

court, and expressed remorse for his actions; asserts that he did not receive a 

substantial benefit from his guilty plea “considering he received a de facto life 

sentence”; and points to the request of K.D.’s father that his term be thirty-six 

years. Id. at 9. He further argues that his prior criminal history was related to a 

serious drug and alcohol addiction that began when he was young. 

[10] Our review of the nature of the offenses reveals that, when she was eight or nine 

years old and in his care, custody, and control, Lewis licked the vagina of K.D., 

the daughter of his stepson, and fondled or touched her with the intent to 

arouse or satisfy his own sexual desires. Lewis indicated during his December 

2, 2016 interview that sexual and inappropriate contact with K.D. occurred on 

several occasions, which he estimated to be more than five times, and less than 

ten times. K.D.’s depiction of the offenses from her forensic interview includes

descriptions of Lewis’s actions and her efforts to stop him. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2454 | March 19, 2019 Page 8 of 9

[11] As for his character, Lewis characterized the offenses as a game, contended that 

the molesting continued because K.D. enjoyed it, denied being the aggressor, and 

blamed K.D. for being the initiator. He pled guilty to Counts II and III nineteen 

months after being charged, and the State dismissed three counts of child 

molesting as level 1 felonies and one count of child molesting as a level 4 felony. 

To the extent that Lewis asserts that he received a de facto life sentence, we 

observe that his combined sentence is nevertheless a term of years and is not 

considered a life sentence even if it were to exceed his expected life span. See

Anthony v. State, 56 N.E.3d 705, 717 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (noting defendant’s 

argument that he was twenty years old when he committed the offenses and 

finding that, even though his combined sentence of 298 years exceeded his 

expected life span, his sentence was nevertheless a term of years), trans. denied. 

The PSI indicates that Lewis has a prior criminal history consisting of two felony 

and two misdemeanor convictions, two of which occurred as recently as 2013. 

According to the PSI, Lewis started regularly using alcohol at the age of fourteen, 

and he reported drinking every day up until his arrest and that he would usually 

drink a twelve-pack of beer a day on the weeknights and drink whiskey on the 

weekends. The PSI indicates that he admitted to using methamphetamine and 

heroin in the past; started to use methamphetamine at the age of nineteen and 

would use it every day “up until several years ago”; started using heroin at the 

age of nineteen; and reported he had not used any illegal substances “until a 

couple of years ago” and that he has never had treatment. Appellant’s Appendix 

Volume II at 83. The PSI states that Lewis reported his “physical health was ok, 

although he does have Hepatitis C” and that “he has had the Hepatitis for a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2454 | March 19, 2019 Page 9 of 9

while, it just took it [sic] 12 to 13 years to tell him about it.” Id. The PSI also 

indicates that Lewis’s overall risk assessment score using the Indiana risk 

assessment system placed him in the high risk to reoffend category. 

[12] After due consideration, we conclude that Lewis has not sustained his burden 

of establishing that his aggregate sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature 

of the offenses and his character. 

[13] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Lewis’s sentence. 

[14] Affirmed. 

Bailey, J., and Bradford, J., concur.