Mendoza v. State

Decision Date16 February 2021
Docket NumberCourt of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-2784
Citation167 N.E.3d 692 (Table)
Parties Juan E. MENDOZA, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION

Mathias, Judge.

[1] For nearly two decades, Juan Mendoza molested his four daughters. His conduct was eventually exposed, and a jury ultimately found him guilty of four counts of Class A felony molesting, one count of Class A felony attempted child molesting, one count of Class C felony child molesting, and one count of Level 4 felony attempted incest. The court entered judgment on the seven convictions and imposed an aggregate 216-year sentence.

[2] On appeal, Mendoza raises several issues for our review, which we restate as the following five:

I. Whether his convictions and sentences on two identically worded counts violate the prohibition against double jeopardy;
II. Whether alleged deficiencies in the charging information violated his right to due process;
III. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction for Class A felony attempted child molesting;
IV. Whether he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and
V. Whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character.

[3] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[4] In 2003, Mendoza moved to Elkhart, Indiana with his wife, Martha Reynaga, and their four daughters: A.M. (born in 1996); B.M. (born in 1998); M.M. (born in 1999); and C.M. (born in 2002). From 2003 to 2006, the family lived in a home located in downtown Elkhart ("Downtown Home"), after which they moved to a home on Morehouse Avenue ("Morehouse Home"). In both locations, and for nearly twenty years, Mendoza repeatedly molested his daughters.1

[5] From the time A.M. was seven years old until her mid-teens, Mendoza would touch his penis to her vagina and would force A.M. to touch his penis with both her hands and mouth. Mendoza told A.M. that "it was normal because people used to do it back in the day." Tr. Vol. 3, p. 92. He also told her "that he did it because [their mother] wouldn't do it for him," and if he could not fulfill his sexual desire with his daughters, "he was going to cheat." Id.

[6] Mendoza first molested B.M. when she was "five, maybe six" at the Downtown Home. Tr. Vol. 4, p. 35. Over the next several years, Mendoza forced B.M. to touch his penis with both her hands and mouth, performed sexual acts with her and A.M. at the same time, and had sexual intercourse with B.M. when she was around eleven years old. Mendoza told B.M., just as he had told A.M., "that it was normal, that back in the day, like in the Bible it says that the family does it—like it's together with the family." Id. at 45. Though B.M. learned in elementary school that her father's actions were inappropriate, she did not want to tell anyone because she was "scared that no one was going to believe [her]." Id. at 46.

[7] Mendoza molested M.M. until she was "13 or 14," Tr. Vol. 3, p. 172, when she told him, "I don't want to do that no more," id. at 175. Prior to that, Mendoza touched his penis to M.M.’s vagina and forced her to perform oral sex on him. Mendoza likewise molested his youngest daughter, C.M., for several years, beginning when she was around four or five years old. She too "thought it happened to every little girl," and Mendoza told her not to "talk about it with anybody." Id. at 139.

[8] By 2018, A.M., B.M., and M.M., had each moved out of the Morehouse Home, but C.M. still lived there. That August, B.M., who had "been really depressed," began talking to A.M. about what Mendoza had done. Tr. Vol. 4, p. 47. Though the sisters rarely discussed their father's perverse actions, B.M. knew Mendoza had also molested A.M. because, at times, they "were in the same room." Id. B.M. was concerned that Mendoza may still be molesting C.M., and once the other three sisters determined that the molestation "was still going on," they knew that they "had to do something about it." Tr. Vol. 3, p. 168. So, A.M., B.M., M.M., and C.M. met together with their mother and, for the first time, described their father's actions. They also contacted the police.

[9] Detective Ryan Hubbell attended a forensic interview of C.M.—she was under eighteen years old at the time—and conducted interviews of A.M., B.M., and M.M. During those interviews, the four sisters detailed the years of molestation they had endured. Detective Hubbell also spoke to Mendoza who said the "allegations were being made up by his daughters." Id. at 203. About a week later, the State charged Mendoza with seven counts: Count I (Class A felony child molesting) and Count V (Class A felony attempted child molesting) related to A.M.; Counts II and III (both for Class A felony child molesting) related to B.M.; Count IV (Class A felony child molesting) related to M.M.; and Count VI (Class C felony child molesting) and Count VII (Level 4 felony incest) related to C.M.

[10] On October 7, 2019, Mendoza's jury trial began. Over the next three days, the jury listened as A.M., B.M., M.M., and C.M. recounted several examples of their father's sexual acts. During trial, the State, over Mendoza's objection, amended Count VII to Level 4 felony attempted incest. Id. at 178; Vol. 4, p. 63. The jury ultimately found Mendoza guilty as charged. About a month later, the court imposed an aggregate 216-year sentence: consecutive sentences of forty years for each of the five Class A felony convictions; six years for the Class C felony conviction; and ten years for the Level 4 felony conviction.

[11] Mendoza now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[12] Mendoza argues that (1) his convictions and sentences on Counts II and III, which were charged using identical language, violate the prohibition against double jeopardy; (2) the duplicate language of Counts II and III as well as the lengthy time spans alleged in Counts I through VI violated his right to due process; (3) the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction for Class A felony attempted child molesting; (4) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (5) his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character.

[13] We address each of these arguments in turn.

I. There is no double-jeopardy violation as Mendoza was convicted of Counts II and III for two sufficiently distinct criminal acts.

[14] Mendoza first contends that his convictions and sentences on Counts II and III violate the constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy. This presents a question of law that we review de novo. Wadle v. State , 151 N.E.3d 227, 237 (Ind. 2020).

[15] The prohibition against double jeopardy—embedded in both the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution —shields a criminal defendant from being twice convicted for the same offense in a single prosecution. Wadle , 151 N.E.3d at 239. For alleged substantive double-jeopardy violations, as Mendoza seemingly raises here, our supreme court recently explained that such claims "arise in one of two situations: (1) when a single criminal act or transaction violates multiple statutes with common elements, or (2) when a single criminal act or transaction violates a single statute and results in multiple injuries." Powell v. State , 151 N.E.3d 256, 263 (Ind. 2020) (citing Wadle , 151 N.E.3d at 247–48 ). Yet, as we explain in more detail below, neither situation is implicated here because Mendoza's relevant convictions were each predicated on a distinct criminal act.

[16] In Counts II and III, the State charged Mendoza as follows:

The undersigned affiant swears that on or about or between June, 2003, through the 18th day of June, 2011, at the County of Elkhart, State of Indiana, one JUAN E. MENDOZA, a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age, did knowingly perform or submit to deviate sexual conduct with B.M., a child under fourteen (14) years of age, all of which is contrary to the form of I.C. § 35-42-4-3(a)(1) ; contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided; and, against the peace and dignity of the State of Indiana.

Appellant's Conf. App. p. 17. Because the State charged each count with identical language, Mendoza claims that he "was punished twice for exactly the same offense." Reply Br. at 8.2 The State acknowledges the duplicate counts but contends that there was no double-jeopardy violation because Mendoza was convicted based on "separate incidents and, thus, separate violations of the child molesting statute." Appellee's Br. at 24. Mendoza does not disagree that the State could have obtained two convictions under the statute. Reply Br. at 9. In his view, however, because the charging information does not specifically identify two separate incidents, Mendoza maintains that the State violated constitutional "double jeopardy principles." Id. He is mistaken. While we agree with Mendoza that the State could have used more precise language in charging Counts II and III, he was not convicted based on the charging information alone. And the record establishes that, for each count, Mendoza was convicted based on separate criminal acts.

[17] As noted above, in Counts II and III, the State alleged that Mendoza "did knowingly perform or submit to sexual deviate conduct with B.M., a child under fourteen (14) years of age, all of which is contrary to the form of I.C. § 35-42-4-3(a)(1)." Appellant's Conf. App. p. 17. The legislature defined "deviate sexual conduct" as "an act involving: (1) a sex organ of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or (2) the penetration of the sex organ or anus of a person by an object." I.C. § 35-41-1-9 (2003). Here, the probable-cause affidavit and evidence from trial establishes that Mendoza was charged with, and ultimately convicted of twice violating a single statute, I.C. § 35-42-4-3(a)(1) (2003), by engaging in two distinct acts of sexual deviate...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT