Title: Charles Rivers v. State of Indiana
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 49S02-0910-CR-489
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: October 22, 2009

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT 
Kent D. Zepick 
Fishers, Indiana 
Ann Marie Sutton 
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
Gregory F. Zoeller 
Attorney General of Indiana 
Arturo Rodriguez II 
Deputy Attorney General 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
No. 49S02-0910-CR-489 
CHARLES RIVERS, 
Appellant (Defendant below), 
v. 
STATE OF INDIANA, 
Appellee (Plaintiff below). 
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49G04–0708–FA–173420 
The Honorable Charles Wiles, Judge 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02–0809–CR–00791 
October 22, 2009 
Shepard, Chief Justice. 
A jury found appellant Charles Rivers guilty of child molesting.  There were two 
incidents, charged as three counts.  On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and 
the appropriateness of his sentence.  Based on the character of the offender and the nature of the 
offenses, we revise the sentences to be served concurrently, for a total of thirty years executed. 
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
Oct 22 2009, 10:26 am
2 
Facts and Procedural History 
On two occasions between 1998 and 2000, Rivers molested his seven or eight year old 
niece, M.N., at her home in Marion County.  On one occasion, Rivers, his girlfriend and M.N. 
fell asleep in the living room after the group had been watching television.  M.N. awoke to 
Rivers removing her underwear and asked “what he was doing.” (Tr. at 19-20.)  Rivers 
responded that he was “checking the size of [her] underwear.” (Tr. at 19.)  Rivers then placed his 
mouth on M.N.’s vagina and “orally molested” her until she was able to put her feet on his 
shoulders and push him away. (Tr. at 20-21.) 
A few months later, Rivers was alone with M.N. and put his hand on her leg while they 
sat on the couch.  M.N. stood up and tried to get away by locking herself in the bathroom.  The 
lock did not fasten properly and Rivers followed her into the bathroom.  Rivers told her to turn 
around and face the toilet.  Rivers pulled down M.N.’s underwear and “tried to enter [her] from 
behind.” (Tr. at 25.)  M.N. told Rivers that it hurt, and Rivers said that it “would only hurt a little 
bit.” (Tr. at 25.)  Rivers stopped after M.N. continued to say “ouch.”  M.N. went to the bathroom 
again; around thirty minutes later, to brush her teeth and Rivers entered, sat on the toilet, and 
pulled out his penis.  He took M.N.’s hand and placed it on his penis, moving her hand up-and-
down for around three minutes.  After Rivers ejaculated he told M.N. “that it meant that he liked 
[her].” (Tr. at 27.) 
Some seven years later, M.N. told her father that his brother Rivers had molested her. (Tr. 
at 30, 64-65.)  Police were notified shortly thereafter and Rivers was charged with three counts 
of child molesting; two counts as class A felonies and the third count as a class C felony.  A jury 
found Rivers guilty on all three counts.  The trial court sentenced Rivers to serve consecutive 
sentences of thirty years on each class A felony and a concurrent four-year sentence on the class 
C felony, for a total of sixty years executed.  Rivers appealed only his class A convictions and 
3 
his sentence.  The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the convictions, but divided on 
whether the sentence warranted revision. Rivers v. State, No. 49A02-0809-CR-791, slip. op. at 7, 
(Ind. Ct. App. April 16, 2009).  We grant transfer to address the sentencing issue only.1   
I. 
Considering the Sentence 
Rivers claims that his sentence is inappropriate.  Indiana’s sentencing scheme provides a 
sentence for class A felonies from twenty to fifty years, with an “advisory” term of thirty years.  
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4 (Supp. 2007).  Rivers received the advisory sentence on each count. He 
contends the trial court erred when it ordered his thirty-year sentences served consecutively.  
When a trial court imposes a sentence, it must enter a statement including reasonably 
detailed reasons or circumstances for imposing that particular sentence. Anglemyer v. State, 868 
N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007).  The court on appeal reviews those reasons and the omission of any 
reasons arguably supported by the record for abuse of discretion. See id.  Rivers does not allege 
any error in this regard, but rather he asks the Court to exercise its independent constitutional 
authority to review and revise a criminal sentence. Ind. Const. art. VII §§ 4, 6.  Such reviews 
proceed in accordance with Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B): “The Court may revise a sentence 
authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds that 
the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the 
offender.” 
As to Rivers’ character, the trial court appropriately noted that Rivers has no prior 
convictions.  The record also indicates Rivers maintained steady employment and prior to 
committing his crimes served as a father figure to M.N. for a number of years.  (Tr. 16-17, 40-41, 
                                                 
1 As to all other issues, the Court of Appeals’ decision is summarily affirmed. Ind. App. R. 58(A)(2). 
4 
46, 55-56, 62, 90, 94-95, 104-105, 128; Sent. Tr. at 7, 10, 13; PSI at 7.)  The victim testified that 
her relationship with Rivers was good and that the two of them did a lot of family activities 
together prior to his crimes.  It is without a doubt that Rivers’ crimes betrayed this relationship, 
but the record does not indicate that Rivers interaction and involvement in M.N.’s life prior to his 
crimes was anything short of constructive. 
Turning to the offenses, the parties are correct that Rivers’ acts of molesting his niece 
deserve a serious sanction.  Rivers was M.N.’s uncle and clearly violated a position of trust.  The 
record does not indicate his crimes occurred over a long period of time, however, or that there 
was any other sexual misconduct on Rivers’ part.  Rather, the record indicates Rivers molested 
M.N. on two occasions (charged as three) in a relatively short period of time, then stopped on his 
own accord, and did not commit any other offenses in the seven years that passed until he was 
charged. 
After reviewing the sentence imposed, the nature of the offenses and Rivers’ character, 
we conclude that imposing Rivers’ class A advisory sentences to run consecutively is not 
warranted. 
II. 
Conclusion 
We affirm Rivers’ convictions and direct that his two thirty-year sentences be served 
concurrently.  The trial court may issue an amended sentencing order and any other entries 
necessary to impose a revised sentence without a hearing. 
Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.  
 
Dickson, J., dissents without separate opinion.