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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.