ILNews

Justices say sentencing scores can be used

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

State trial judges can consider sentencing scores to help tailor penalties to individual defendants, as long as those results aren’t used as final aggravating or mitigating factors in deciding a penalty length, the Indiana Supreme Court says.

In Anthony Malenchik v. State of Indiana, 79S02-0908-CR-365, the court unanimously found that judges can use what are called Level of Service Inventory-Revised, or LSI-R, in order to assess whether an offender is likely to commit more crimes and determine the level of supervision and type of treatment needed.

“Such evidence-based assessment instruments can be significant sources of valuable information for judicial consideration in deciding whether to suspend all or part of a sentence, how to design a probation program for the offender, whether to assign an offender to alternative treatment facilities or programs, and other such corollary sentencing matters,” Justice Brent Dickson wrote in the 15-page decision.

After pleading guilty to receiving stolen property and admitting to being a habitual offender, Malenchik received a six-year sentence with two years suspended. On appeal, the defendant argued the trial judge used the numerical scores as an aggravating circumstance and that his sentence was improper. He argued that it was improper for the judge to use those scores, as those models aren’t scientifically or objectively reliable and that it conflicts with his state constitutional right that the penal code be founded on reformation principles and not vindictive justice. More broadly, he contended that using such scores could lead to “an unwise fundamental change” in Indiana’s sentencing system. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence and score use.

Finding that state judges have judicial flexibility in considering various aspects for sentences, the justices determined that Tippecanoe Superior Judge Les Meade hadn’t used the test scores as aggravating factors against Malenchik.

Pointing out that the Court of Appeals has questioned the legitimacy of sentencing consideration of evidence-based assessment results in this case and another, the justices disagreed based on “a growing body of impressive research supporting the widespread use and efficacy of evidence-based offender assessment tools.”

But in saying the scores can be used, the court clearly noted that these tests are neither “intended nor recommended to substitute for the judicial function of determining the length of sentence appropriate for each offender.”

Justice Dickson wrote, “We defer to the sound discernment and discretion of trial judges to give the tools proper consideration and appropriate weight.”

In an accompanying four-page opinion in J.S. v. State of Indiana, 79S02-1006-CR-296, the court applied that Malenchik rationale in granting transfer and affirming another Tippecanoe Superior judge’s order, keeping intact a convicted child molester’s eight-year sentence on the same grounds.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The Conour embarrassment is an example of why it would be a good idea to NOT name public buildings or to erect monuments to "worthy" people until AFTER they have been dead three years, at least. And we also need to stop naming federal buildings and roads after a worthless politician whose only achievement was getting elected multiple times (like a certain Congressman after whom we renamed the largest post office in the state). Also, why have we renamed BOTH the Center Township government center AND the new bus terminal/bum hangout after Julia Carson?

  2. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  3. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  4. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  5. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

ADVERTISEMENT