Court Opinion

ID: 9897268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:09:28.407804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:41.968677
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                     Oct 05 2023, 9:28 am

                                                                         CLERK
                                                                     Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                        Court of Appeals
                                                                          and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
R. Brian Woodward                                          Theodore E. Rokita
Crown Point, Indiana                                       Indiana Attorney General

                                                           Alexandria Sons
                                                           Deputy Attorney General

                                                           David P. Dekold
                                                           Certified Legal Intern
                                                           Indianapolis, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Harry Gillespie Nicholson, IV,                             October 5, 2023
Appellant-Defendant,                                       Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                           23A-CR-890
        v.                                                 Appeal from the Lake Superior
                                                           Court
State of Indiana,                                          The Honorable Samuel L. Cappas,
Appellee-Plaintiff                                         Judge
                                                           Trial Court Cause No.
                                                           45G04-2103-F3-60

                                Opinion by Chief Judge Altice
                                Judges May and Foley concur.

Altice, Chief Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-890 | October 5, 2023                           Page 1 of 10
      Case Summary
[1]   Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Harry Gillespie Nicholson, IV,

      pleaded guilty to Level 4 felony sexual misconduct with a minor. The trial

      court subsequently sentenced Nicholson to the maximum term of twelve years

      in the Department of Correction (DOC). On appeal, Nicholson argues that his

      sentence is inappropriate given the nature of his offense and his character.

[2]   We affirm.

      Facts & Procedural History
[3]   A.H. and her mother (Mother) began living with Nicholson in Illinois in 2007,

      when A.H. was four years old. Nicholson eventually became A.H.’s stepfather,

      and the family lived in various locations in Illinois before moving to Indiana in

      July 2018, when A.H. was fifteen years old. On March 18, 2021, A.H.

      disclosed to administrators at her high school that Nicholson had been sexually

      abusing her for the last fourteen years. According to A.H., the abuse had

      occurred more times than she could count. She offered the number “1500

      times” as a guess. Appendix at 19.

[4]   A.H.’s first memory of the abuse was from shortly after she moved into

      Nicholson’s home at the age of four. Nicholson took her into his bedroom and

      told her to remove her clothing and lie on the bed. After she complied, he

      guided her hand to his penis and told her to move her hand back and forth. He

      eventually placed his penis in her mouth, moving it in and out, until he

      ejaculated on the floor.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-890 | October 5, 2023         Page 2 of 10
[5]   Similar incidents occurred over the next several years and sometimes also

      included him rubbing her chest area and ejaculating on her body. A.H.

      indicated that he continued to touch her sexually and consistently, about three

      to four times a week, generally when Mother was at work. At first, in response

      to A.H.’s protests, Nicholson would tell her that the “‘boogey man’ would

      come and get” her if she told anyone. Id. at 20.

[6]   When A.H. was ten years old, Nicholson began attempting to have sexual

      intercourse with her, which caused her pain. He was unable to fully penetrate

      her vagina, but he kept trying for the next two years. During this time, he also

      started touching her vagina with his hands.

[7]   The first time Nicholson was able to fully penetrate A.H.’s vagina with his

      penis happened when she was twelve years old. From that point forward, “all

      of the sexual activity between the two of them [involved] some form of sexual

      intercourse.” Id. Nicholson would make A.H. say sexually explicit things to

      him, and he never wore a condom. Further, after obtaining a vasectomy in

      2019, Nicolson began ejaculating inside A.H. at times.

[8]   Nicolson started using money, fifty to one hundred dollars, as an incentive for

      A.H. to have sex with him once she was about thirteen or fourteen years old. If

      she refused his demands, he would withhold money and would not allow her to

      see her friends. Around the age of fifteen, Nicholson began having A.H. send

      nude pictures of herself to him. He also made A.H. perform oral sex on him

      often. A.H. estimated that since moving to Indiana at the age of fifteen in 2018,

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-890 | October 5, 2023      Page 3 of 10
       “Nicholson had sex with her approximately two times a week totaling

       ‘hundreds of times.’” Id.

[9]    On March 17, 2021, shortly after A.H. turned eighteen years old, Nicholson

       had sexual intercourse with her for the last time. He came home from work

       and told A.H. to come into his bedroom and take off her clothes. Nicholson

       “seemed annoyed” when A.H. did not follow his direction to take off her shirt.

       Id. He then spread her legs apart and put his penis in her vagina. A.H. later

       tearfully recounted during her sexual assault examination,

               He was holding my legs down and open. I was just laying there
               trying to think this wasn’t happening and wanting it over. Then
               he was holding my legs to the side while continuing, I told him it
               hurt my knees[,] so he moved my legs to the other side.

       Id. at 20-21. A.H. left the home after this sexual encounter and did not shower

       before her sexual assault examination the next day.

[10]   Before March 18, 2021, Mother was unaware of the abuse. A.H. had confided

       in friends in Illinois and Indiana in the last several years about her situation, but

       she did not give them details. When unsuccessful in encouraging A.H. to

       disclose the abuse, a friend went to her own parents, who then contacted the

       high school. This resulted in A.H. fully disclosing the abuse at school and to

       Mother and law enforcement on March 18, 2021. Nicholson was not arrested

       for eight more days, and in the interim, Mother and A.H. were “terrified as to

       what he would do if he found out a case was being made against him.”

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-890 | October 5, 2023         Page 4 of 10
       Transcript at 17. They reported being “scared for their lives” because Nicholson

       was a former police officer and Marine and had “lots of guns.” Appendix at 19.

[11]   On March 26, 2021, the State charged Nicholson with Level 3 felony rape,

       Level 4 felony sexual misconduct with a minor, Level 5 felony child seduction,

       Level 5 felony sexual misconduct with a minor, Level 6 felony child seduction,

       and Level 6 felony sexual battery. The parties entered into a plea agreement in

       February 2023, by which Nicholson pleaded guilty to Level 4 felony sexual

       misconduct with a minor (for having sexual intercourse with A.H. when she

       was at least fourteen but less than sixteen years of age) and the other counts

       were dismissed. The plea agreement left sentencing to the discretion of the trial

       court.

[12]   At the sentencing hearing on March 23, 2023, A.H. gave a victim impact

       statement explaining in part: “I can’t offer a clear before and after, only the

       trauma that’s been inflicted. The abuse that has occurred was almost my whole

       life up until the Defendant’s incarceration.” Transcript at 22. Because of the

       years of abuse, which she described as “violent experiences,” A.H. noted that

       she has been diagnosed with PTSD, depression, and anxiety. Id. She takes

       antidepressants and faces “many years if not a lifetime of healing and therapy.”

       Id. A.H. indicated that the abuse caused difficulty for her in “building long-

       term intimate relationships.” Id. at 24. Finally, A.H. opined, “if the Defendant

       is ever presented with the opportunity to do something like this again, I know

       that he would take advantage of it.” Id.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-890 | October 5, 2023        Page 5 of 10
[13]   Mother also gave a statement at sentencing. She expressed fear that Nicholson

       would violate an order of protection, as he had stated to her “many times”

       before that “it is just a piece of paper” and that “living in rural Lowell, Indiana,

       it could take up to a half an hour for a police officer to respond to a call.” Id. at

       19. Mother stated that she often wakes up in the middle of the night to make

       sure the doors and windows are locked and that she had disassociated with

       many friends and family to keep them safe. Mother also remarked, “If the

       Defendant can do such heinous things to a child that he referred to as his own

       daughter, I can’t imagine he wouldn’t do this to somebody else.” Id. at 20.

[14]   At the end of the sentencing hearing, the trial court rejected mitigating

       circumstances proffered by Nicholson, finding that the circumstances were

       extremely likely to reoccur given that he had repeatedly molested A.H. for

       fourteen years and that Nicholson’s plea was a “practical solution to [his]

       predicament” because of DNA evidence and avoidance of a rape conviction.

       Appendix at 99. The trial court found aggravating circumstances including,

       among others: Nicholson was in a position of trust as A.H.’s stepfather; he had

       been a law enforcement officer yet violated the law many times; he molested

       A.H. over 1500 times, grooming her for fourteen years and breaking her spirit;

       the emotional and mental trauma caused by Nicholson scarred A.H. for life;

       and the harm suffered by A.H. was significant and greater than the elements

       necessary to prove the offense, as he molested her hundreds of times and had

       her send naked photographs of herself to him. Ultimately, the trial court found

       that despite Nicholson’s lack of prior convictions, he was “the worst of the

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-890 | October 5, 2023          Page 6 of 10
       worst” with a fourteen-year history of molesting A.H. Transcript at 48. The

       court observed that Nicholson was “the boogeyman” and sentenced him to

       twelve years in the DOC. Id. at 47.

[15]   Nicholson now appeals, challenging the appropriateness of the trial court’s

       imposition of the maximum sentence. Additional information will be provided

       below as needed.

       Discussion & Decision
[16]   Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 7(b), this court may revise a sentence, if, after

       considering the trial court’s decision, we find that the sentence is inappropriate

       in light of the nature of the offense and character of the offender. Sentencing

       review under App. R. 7(b) is deferential to the trial court’s decision, and we

       avoid merely substituting our judgment. Golden v. State, 862 N.E. 2d 1212, 1218

       (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. “Such deference should prevail unless

       overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the

       offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the

       defendant’s character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples

       of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[17]   The principal role of App. R. 7(b) review is to “attempt to leaven the outliers”

       and to “identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with

       improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve the perceived

       ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind.

       2008). The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; the

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-890 | October 5, 2023        Page 7 of 10
       question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894

       N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Nicholson bears the burden on appeal of

       persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d

       1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).

[18]   As the trial court imposed the maximum sentence here, 1 Nicholson directs us to

       the Supreme Court’s observation that maximum sentences are “generally most

       appropriate for the worst offenders,” which he claims he is not. Buchanan v.

       State, 767 N.E.2d 967, 973 (Ind. 2002). The Supreme Court explained:

                This is not, however, a guideline to determine whether a worse
                offender could be imagined. Despite the nature of any particular
                offense and offender, it will always be possible to identify or
                hypothesize a significantly more despicable scenario. Although
                maximum sentences are ordinarily appropriate for the worst
                offenders, we refer generally to the class of offenses and offenders
                that warrant the maximum punishment. But such class
                encompasses a considerable variety of offenses and offenders.

       Id. For the reasons below, we agree with the trial court that Nicholson is within

       the class of offenders for whom the maximum possible sentence is appropriate.

[19]   The nature, extent, and depravity of Nicholson’s sexual abuse of A.H. warrant

       imposing the maximum sentence. His conviction required only one instance of

       sexual intercourse with A.H. when she was at least fourteen but less than

       1
        The sentencing range for a Level 4 felony is two to twelve years, with an advisory sentence of six years.
       Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-890 | October 5, 2023                                Page 8 of 10
       sixteen years of age, yet the record establishes that he had sexual intercourse –

       always unprotected - with her hundreds of times since she was twelve years old,

       having tried unsuccessfully and consistently for two years before that. And he

       began molesting her and having her perform oral sex on him at the tender age

       of four. When she would protest at a young age, he threatened that the

       “boogeyman” would get her if she told anyone. 2 Later, he withheld money and

       isolated her from friends if she did not engage in sexual intercourse with him.

       Nicholson was in a significant position of trust over A.H., which he violated

       consistently for fourteen years, several times a week, for an estimated total of

       1500 times. Additionally, for the last few years of the abuse, Nicholson had

       been requesting nude photographs from A.H.

[20]   As the State argued at the sentencing hearing, the harm suffered by A.H., and

       later Mother, was “unbearable, crippling.” Transcript at 30. A.H. endured a life

       of abuse for nearly her entire childhood at the hands of her own stepfather. As

       a result, she suffers from PTSD, depression, and anxiety and will likely struggle

       with mental and emotional issues for years to come, if not forever. Mother’s

       life has also been altered tremendously.

       2
         Nicholson suggests that he never used force or threat of harm when sexually abusing A.H. However, his
       threats about the “boogeyman” would have likely terrified a young child, and his grooming of A.H. since a
       young age helped ensure that he need not resort to such scare tactics for long. Indeed, according to A.H.,
       after about the age of seven, “she did not threaten to tell anyone and these acts became something which she
       just got used to.” Appendix at 20. Moreover, regarding her last sexual encounter with Nicholson, A.H.
       explained that he became annoyed when she would not remove her shirt and then he spread her legs, holding
       them “down and open,” as he penetrated her vagina with his penis. Id. at 21. Describing the years of abuse,
       A.H. stated: “He would do it whenever he could. I just stopped fighting after a while.... He just held me
       down at my legs and hips.” Id. at 20-21.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-890 | October 5, 2023                              Page 9 of 10
[21]   Turning to character, Nicholson notes that he had no prior criminal convictions

       and that the only other charge filed against him was for violating a protective

       order in 2008. He also observes that at the time of his instant arrest he was

       employed full-time earning a six-figure income, that he successfully raised two

       sons (both now adults), and that he was honorably discharged by the United

       States Marine Corps in 1997. Despite this, we find most telling of Nicholson’s

       character that he did not lead a law-abiding life throughout the fourteen years

       that he was actively and repeatedly abusing A.H., his own stepdaughter, from

       the tender age of four into early adulthood.

[22]   Nicholson has failed to establish that the maximum sentence imposed by the

       trial court was inappropriate given the nature of the offense and his character.

       Accordingly, we affirm Nicholson’s twelve-year sentence.

[23]   Judgment affirmed.

       May, J. and Foley, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-890 | October 5, 2023      Page 10 of 10