Tavitas, J.
Case Summary
Michael Heckard appeals his convictions and sentence for two counts of child molesting, Level 1 felonies. We affirm.
….
B. Continuous Crime Doctrine
Heckard next argues that his two convictions fall under the continuous crime doctrine, and accordingly, conviction of both offenses violates the prohibition against double jeopardy. [Footnote omitted.] First, Heckard argues that his convictions violate the continuous crime doctrine because the doctrine “provides that actions that are sufficient in themselves to constitute separate criminal offenses may be so compressed in terms of time, place, and singleness of purpose and continuity of action as to constitute a single transaction.” Appellant’s Br. p. 35. Heckard then argues that he was “twice convicted of committing the same continuous offense. Both acts are classified as child molesting, and are charged under the same statute as ‘other sexual conduct.’” Id. at 37.
We write first to clarify the application of the continuous crime doctrine…In other words, the evaluation of whether the continuous crime doctrine applies is distinct from the question of whether the continuous crime doctrine has been violated. In general, the cases of this court after our supreme court’s 2015 Hines decision follow this analysis, even if not explicitly stating as much… Here, we would agree with the Dilts court that, because Heckard was convicted of two distinct, chargeable crimes, the continuous crime doctrine should not apply. Because both of Heckard’s convictions were under the broad category of child molesting, however, we will address whether Heckard’s convictions violate the continuous crime doctrine.
….
We disagree with Heckard that he was convicted of the same offense twice, but we do recognize that he was charged under the same statute and same broad classification of “child molesting.”…
….
We note that, even looking at the continuity analysis, the evidence is uncontroverted that “[D.K.] said [Heckard] ‘made me stick my mouth on his private. . . and then he stuck his mouth on my private.’” Appellant’s Br. p. 34 (emphasis added). This is similar to the argument made in Firestone, that, “because both offenses occurred in a relatively short period of time and in the same bedroom, [Firestone’s] continuous actions should [have] prevent[ed] him from being convicted of two crimes.” Firestone, 838 N.E.3d at 472. As seen in Firestone, mere closeness in time is not determinative.
Under these facts, Heckard’s convictions do not violate the continuous crime doctrine.
….
Conclusion
Any error as a result of the trial judge’s exclusion of evidence regarding D.K.’s anal tear contained in the medical report was harmless. In addition, Heckard was charged with and convicted of two separate criminal acts, and his convictions do not violate the continuous crime doctrine. Finally, Heckard’s sentence was not inappropriate. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Brown, J., and Altice, J., concur.