Timothy Hobbs v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED 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. Mar 08 2010, 10:19 am CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: T. MICHAEL CARTER Scottsburg, Indiana GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana NICOLE DONGIEUX WIGGINS Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA TIMOTHY HOBBS, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 36A01-0909-CR-472 APPEAL FROM THE JACKSON CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable William E. Vance, Judge Cause No. 36C01-0901-FA-1 March 8, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION VAIDIK, Judge Case Summary Timothy Hobbs was convicted of five counts of Class A felony child molesting and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 105 years. We conclude Hobbs sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. We affirm. Facts and Procedural History Hobbs was thirty-six years old when he began living with his girlfriend Melissa and her three children. At some point Hobbs married Melissa and became stepfather to her kids. Melissa s daughter S.G. was eight or nine years old when Hobbs first moved in. Hobbs sexually abused S.G. over the next four years. Hobbs would molest S.G. while her mother was at work. He fondled S.G. s breasts, made her perform oral sex on him, and engaged in both vaginal and anal sex with her. Hobbs threatened to kill S.G. and her family if she told anyone about their sexual relations. Hobbs also smoked marijuana with S.G. and encouraged her to take birth control. Hobbs moved out in 2008, after which S.G. informed her family that he had sexually abused her. Hobbs was charged with five counts of Class A felony child molesting which occurred between 2005 and December 2008. A jury found Hobbs guilty as charged. Hobbs was sentenced to thirty-five years on each count. Counts I and II were run concurrently, and Counts III and IV were run concurrently. Count V was run consecutive to Counts I and IV, for an aggregate term of 105 years. Discussion and Decision 2 Hobbs argues that his 105-year sentence is inappropriate. Although a trial court may have acted within its lawful discretion in imposing a sentence, Article 7, Sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorize independent appellate review and revision of sentences through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that a 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. Reid v. State, 876 N.E.2d 1114, 1116 (Ind. 2007) (citing Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007)). The defendant has the burden of persuading us that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Id. (citing Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006)). With regard to the nature of the offenses, Hobbs sexually abused his stepdaughter over a period of approximately four years. He was charged in this case with no fewer than five separate instances of molestation. The acts included oral sex, vaginal sex, and anal sex. Hobbs provided his stepdaughter marijuana and encouraged her to go on birth control. He violated a position of trust and authority in order to take advantage of her, and he threatened to kill her entire family if she told anyone what he was doing. As for his character, Hobbs criminal record includes two battery convictions as well as convictions for disorderly conduct and check deception. His pre-sentence investigation report reflects an additional pending charge for battery resulting in bodily injury. Moreover, Hobbs committed at least a portion of the present misconduct while on probation from another cause. 3 Hobbs cites a series of sexual misconduct and child molestation cases in which defendants aggregate sentences were reduced substantially. See Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852, 857-58 (Ind. 2003) (385 years modified to 90 years); Walker v. State, 747 N.E.2d 536, 538 (Ind. 2001) (80 years modified to 40); Fointno v. State, 487 N.E.2d 140, 149 (Ind. 1986) (104 years modified to 80); Payton v. State, 818 N.E.2d 493, 498 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (39 years modified to 25 1/2), trans. denied; Kien v. State, 782 N.E.2d 398, 416-17 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (120 years modified to 80), reh g denied, trans. denied; see also Tyler v. State, 903 N.E.2d 463, 468-69 (Ind. 2009) (110 years modified to 67 1/2). Yet each of these cases offered at least some compelling circumstances which favored a downward sentence revision. See Serino, 798 N.E.2d at 858 ( Pertinent to the appropriateness of this outcome was substantial uncontested testimony from numerous witnesses speaking to Serino s positive character traits. ); Walker, 747 N.E.2d at 538 (trial court found no history of criminal behavior); Fointno, 487 N.E.2d at 148 ( Defendant had no criminal record prior to this assault, and had served as an Anderson fireman for about 10 years, apparently with no serious problems or disciplinary citations. ); Payton, 818 N.E.2d at 498 (inappropriate touching lasted a minute or two for each child, and children were fully clothed); Kien, 782 N.E.2d at 416 ( [T]he evidence did not necessarily establish that the acts occurred at significantly different times with Kien having time to reflect upon the heinous nature of the crimes committed[.] ); see also Tyler, 903 N.E.2d at 469 (defendant did not seek to establish a prior position of trust or confidence over victim children, he was emotionally troubled from a young age, he was placed in institutions throughout his youth, and he was diagnosed with a brain tumor 4 which affected his ability to control his behavior). We find no similar considerations in the case before us. In conclusion, we cannot say Hobbs aggregate 105-year term is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Affirmed. RILEY, J., and CRONE, J., concur. 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.