Ralph Hughett v. State of Indiana

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 26, 2015
• Docket: 10A05-1406-CR-280
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Jan 26 2015, 9:38 am 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 Jeffrey D. Stonebraker Gregory F. Zoeller Clark County Chief Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana Jeffersonville, Indiana Graham T. Youngs Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ralph Hughett, January 26, 2015

Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No. 10A05-1406-CR-280 v. Appeal from the Clark Circuit Court The Honorable Vicki L. Carmichael, Judge State of Indiana, Cause No. 10C04-0910-FA-307 Appellee-Plaintiff

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1406-CR-280 | January 26, 2015 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] Ralph Hughett appeals the fifty-year sentence imposed by the trial court

following his guilty plea to one count of class A felony child molesting and one

count of class C felony child molesting. Hughett molested two of his

granddaughters. He claims that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the

nature of his offenses and his character. Finding that Hughett has not met his

burden to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] Hughett fondled, touched, and had sexual intercourse with his granddaughter

V.P. on multiple occasions beginning in 2000, when she was five years old, and

continuing until 2009 when she was fourteen years old. The molestations of

V.P. occurred both in Indiana and in Illinois. Also, on one occasion between

2001 and 2002, Hughett touched his other granddaughter A.P. on her vagina

under her clothes when she was five years old.

[3] The State charged Hughett with five counts of class A felony child molesting

and five counts of class C felony child molesting regarding victim V.P. The

State also charged Hughett with one count of class C felony child molesting

regarding victim A.P. On March 10, 2014, Hughett pled guilty to one count of

class A felony child molesting regarding V.P. and one count of class C felony

child molesting regarding A.P. The plea agreement provided for concurrent

sentences. Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced Hughett to fifty years

on the class A felony count and eight years on the class C felony count, to be

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1406-CR-280 | January 26, 2015 Page 2 of 5 served concurrently, for an aggregate sentence of fifty years. 1 This appeal

ensued.

Discussion and Decision [4] Hughett invites this Court to reduce his fifty-year sentence pursuant to Indiana

Appellate Rule 7(B), which 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.” The defendant bears the burden to persuade this Court that

his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080

(Ind. 2006). “[W]hether we regard a sentence as appropriate at the end of the

day turns on our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the

crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light

in a given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). We

recognize that the “principal role of appellate review should be 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 a

1 Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court ordered Hughett’s fifty-year aggregate sentence to be served consecutive to the eight-year sentence Hughett is currently serving in Illinois for a prior conviction for predatory criminal sexual assault also involving victim V.P.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1406-CR-280 | January 26, 2015 Page 3 of 5 perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Id. at 1225. Indeed, “[t]he question

under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more appropriate:

rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” King v.

State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[5] The sentencing range for a class A felony is between twenty and fifty years with

the advisory sentence being thirty years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4. The sentencing

range for a class C felony is between two and eight years with the advisory

sentence being four years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6. The trial court imposed the

maximum sentence on each offense, to be served concurrently, for an aggregate

sentence of fifty years. Hughett believes that this sentence is an outlier. We

disagree.

[6] As for the nature of his offenses, Hughett fondled, touched, and had sexual

intercourse with his granddaughter V.P. on multiple occasions beginning when

she was just five years old and continuing until she was fourteen years old. He

threatened V.P. by telling her that if she told anyone what was happening “he

couldn’t be [her] papaw anymore.” Tr. at 31. V.P. was afraid to reveal the

molestations because her “mamaw” had passed away and Hughett was the only

parent V.P.’s mom had left. Id. On at least one occasion, Hughett also touched

his other granddaughter A.P.’s buttocks and her vagina inside her clothing.

A.P. was only five years old at the time. Hughett attempts to minimize the

heinousness of these offenses by arguing that he never threatened his victims

with physical harm in order to perpetrate his crimes. We consider his use of

emotional control and psychological abuse to be just as reprehensible under the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1406-CR-280 | January 26, 2015 Page 4 of 5 circumstances. These crimes involved the continued abuse of the position of

trust between a grandfather and his young grandchildren. The nature of the

offenses does not warrant a sentence reduction.

[7] As for his character, Hughett argues that his guilty plea should reflect positively

on his character because he spared his victims the trauma of a trial. However,

we cannot ignore the immense benefit Hughett received in exchange for his

plea, as he gained the dismissal of nine additional felony counts and the

guaranteed imposition of concurrent sentences. Hughett’s guilty plea was

clearly a pragmatic decision that is not necessarily a reflection of good

character. Moreover, Hughett’s criminal history reflects negatively on his

character. See Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)

(when considering the character of the offender, one relevant fact is the

defendant’s criminal history). As specifically noted by the trial court, Hughett

was previously convicted of the predatory criminal sexual assault of V.P. in

Illinois and, at the time of sentencing, was still serving an eight-year-sentence

for that crime. In sum, Hughett has not met his burden to demonstrate that his

fifty-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses or his

character, and we decline his invitation for sentence reduction.

[8] Affirmed.

FRIEDLANDER, J., and KIRSCH, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1406-CR-280 | January 26, 2015 Page 5 of 5