ILNews

Advisory sentence not sentencing starting point

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man appealing his 15-year sentence for rape made a "novel" argument in his brief: the trial court should have started its calculation of his sentence using the advisory sentence of 10 years instead of using the midpoint of 13 years.

In Ryan Richardson v. State of Indiana, No. 84A04-0811-CR-654, Ryan Richardson's argument in his appeal of his sentence "highlighted an oddity within Indiana's revised sentencing statutes" that hadn't been addressed yet by the state appellate courts, wrote Judge Terry Crone.

Richardson pleaded guilty to rape and sexual misconduct with a minor; his victim was his 15-year-old niece. The trial court merged the convictions and considered it to really be one crime of rape. The trial judge informed Richardson of the maximum of 20 years, minimum of six years and advisory sentence of 10 years for the rape conviction. The judge used the midpoint of 13 years as his starting point for sentencing. From the 13 years, the judge considered the mitigating and aggravating factors and tacked on two years as an enhancement due to Richardson's prior criminal record.

On appeal, Richardson contended the trial judge should have used the advisory sentence of 10 years as the starting point and added or subtracted time from that point. Judge Crone noted that the statutory sections that provide permissible sentences for Class A, B, C, or D felonies - with the exception of murder - don't have advisory sentences that are the mathematical midpoints between the maximum and minimum sentences. However, the fact the advisory sentences for those felonies don't equal the midway point, while strange, doesn't change the fact the "advisory sentence" is not a mandatory starting point, the judge wrote. A trial court isn't required to use the statutory advisory sentence or any other particular point as a starting point in its sentencing considerations.

The appellate judges reviewed Richardson's sentence and found it to be appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

In a lengthy footnote, Judge Crone wrote that the rape and sexual misconduct with a minor charges didn't have to merge and the facts in the probable cause affidavit outlined two distinct acts.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT