Preview:

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: PAUL J. PACIOR Noblesville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana ARTHUR THADDEUS PERRY Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JAMES E. ROWLEY, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 29A02-0511-PC-1106

APPEAL FROM THE HAMILTON SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Steven R. Nation, Judge Cause No. 29D01-9907-CF-061

December 19, 2006 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION VAIDIK, Judge

Case Summary James Rowley appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence. Because Rowley alleged sentencing errors that require consideration of matters beyond the face of the sentencing judgment, a motion to correct erroneous sentence was not the appropriate procedural mechanism, and the trial court properly denied the motion. Nonetheless, because Rowley is likely to raise the same issues in the future using a different procedure, we reach the issues raised on appeal and affirm Rowley's sentence. Facts and Procedural History Sometime in January or February of 1999, S.H. and G.C. ran away from home. S.H. was thirteen years old, and G.C. was fourteen years old. The boys went to Rowley's apartment and drank alcohol that Rowley, then thirty-four years old, had purchased. During the course of the evening, S.H. and G.C. became intoxicated and ended up on Rowley's bed. At some point, Rowley began touching S.H. Rowley fondled S.H.'s buttocks and penis and began masturbating S.H. before S.H. stood up and left the room. Rowley also rubbed G.C.'s buttocks, inserted his finger into G.C.'s anus, fondled G.C.'s penis, and began masturbating G.C. before G.C. told him to stop. Rowley became upset and threatened to kill the boys if they were to leave the apartment or tell anybody what occurred. S.H. and G.C. were not able to leave Rowley's apartment until the next day when Rowley himself left. In order to leave, the boys had to pry open either a door or a window. S.H. reported these events to police, and Detective Marc Cruea of the

Noblesville Police Department went to Rowley's apartment to talk to him. Rowley admitted his actions to Detective Cruea. 2

The State charged Rowley with: Count I, Child Molesting as a Class A felony, for inserting a finger or object into S.H.'s anus; 1 Count II, Child Molesting as a Class C felony, for fondling S.H.'s penis; 2 Count III, Sexual Misconduct with a Minor as a Class B felony, for inserting a finger or object into G.C.'s anus; 3 Count IV, Sexual Misconduct with a Minor as a Class C felony, for fondling G.C.'s penis; 4 and Count V, Confinement as a Class D felony. 5 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Rowley pled guilty to Counts II-V, the State dismissed Count I, and the parties agreed to leave sentencing to the discretion of the trial court. At the sentencing hearing held on November 2, 2000, the trial court identified four aggravating circumstances: (1) Rowley has violated conditions of probation numerous times; (2) Rowley has a history of criminal and delinquent activity; (3) there is a risk that Rowley will commit crimes in the future; and (4) Rowley violated his position of trust with two minors. 6 As the sole mitigating circumstance, the trial court identified the fact that Rowley "is remorseful for what he's done in his life and that he does not wish to go ahead and continue." Id. at 58. Finding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed

1

Ind. Code

Download James E. Rowley v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law