ILNews

Appeals court affirms molester’s conviction, splits on probation restriction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man’s 15-year executed prison sentence for a conviction of child molesting was affirmed by a Court of Appeals panel Tuesday, but one judge found the conditional probation restrictions on activities involving children unconstitutionally vague.

In Anthony Scott Bratcher v. State of Indiana, 90A02-1301-CR-3, the appeals panel affirmed the Class B-felony conviction imposed in Wells Circuit Court after Bratcher pleaded guilty to molesting a 5-year-old girl when he was 18.

The panel found the sentence was not inappropriate and that Bratcher had not received the maximum sentence because five years of the 20-year term was suspended to probation.

“While Bratcher’s troubled childhood that resulted in juvenile adjudications and placement in juvenile facilities is a consideration in a review of his character, so too is his behavior while in those juvenile facilities,” Judge Rudolph R. Pyle III wrote for the panel that included judges Michael Barnes and Terry Crone.

“Bratcher repeatedly violated probation under his various dispositional orders. Most significant of all these violations was that Bratcher committed child molesting while on juvenile probation for theft,” prior to the instant case.

Crone concurred in the opinion except for its ruling affirming a condition of probation that restricted his interaction with children. The condition: "You shall not participate in any activity which involves children under 18 years of age, such as, but not limited to, youth groups, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Brownies, 4-H, YMCA, YWCA, or youth sports teams, unless given permission by the Court."    

As he did in Collins v. State, 911 N.E.2d 700, 707 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied, Crone wrote in a one-paragraph dissent, “I believe that condition is unconstitutionally vague. Therefore, I respectfully dissent as to that issue.”



 


 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT