Criminal law committee sends sentencing bill to Legislature

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

What was called the key to making Indiana’s new criminal code work has received a nod of approval and is now headed to the Legislature.

The Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee concluded its work Dec. 19 by approving a handful of proposed bills, including one on sentencing. Committee Chair, R. Michael Young, R-Indianapolis, said he felt good about what the interim group was able to accomplish this summer and fall.

Much of the focus of the committee’s agenda has been on reducing the rate of recidivism in the state and devising a sentencing grid for the new criminal code contained in HEA 1006, passed during the 2013 session. Sentencing became the hot-button issue as prosecutors pushed for stiffening the penalties and public defenders advocated for lowering the maximum prison terms for low-level offenders.

Young appointed four committee members – Republicans Sen. Brent Steele, and Reps. Greg Steuerwald and Jud McMillin, along with Democrat Rep. Matt Pierce – to draft changes to the sentencing portion of HEA 1006.

The bill’s provisions include:
* limiting the number of times an offender may file a petition to modify a sentence
* removing the requirement that courts hold a hearing on petitions to modify
* requiring additional prison terms for habitual offenders
* increasing advisory sentences for Level Three, Four and Five felonies
* increasing the number of crimes for which sentences are nonsuspendible
* requiring education credit time be deducted from the release date
* removing the requirement that the courts explain their reasoning when imposing the advisory sentences

Steele, chair of the sentencing workgroup, said the four legislators took ideas from prosecutors and public defenders to craft a bill that would lower the inmate population at the Indiana Department of Correction and provide effective treatment alternatives for low-level offenders.

He said sentencing policy is the key to making HEA 1006 work.

The committee passed the draft on a 9 to 4 vote. David Powell, executive director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council voted yes. Both Larry Landis, executive director of the Indiana Public Defender Council, and Randy Koester, deputy commissioner of re-entry for the DOC, voted against the measure. They cited concerns that the sentencing structure would increase the prison population and overload the state’s penal system.

The committee also unanimously approved a draft proposal that established a mental-health pilot project in Marion County to provide mental health and addiction services to offenders who are released from prison.

A bill establishing another pilot project in Marion County drew heavy opposition. Authored by Young, the measure would create a three-year program to consolidate community corrections and the probation department.

Stakeholders in the criminal justice system asked the committee to scrap the bill and allow them to write the legislation. They were concerned about what they saw as a top-down approach.

Young emphasized the bill will only impact Marion County and that he intends to listen to the stakeholders to improve the draft during the legislative session. Other committee members noted the measure was imperfect but it offered a good starting point to craft something better.

The proposed legislation narrowly passed with an 8 to 5 vote.

Finally, the committee unanimously approved a proposal by Rep. Christina Hale, D-Indianapolis, to study the underreporting of certain crimes.

Hale’s bill requires the Commission on Improving the Status of Children in Indiana to study the underreporting of crimes against children. It also requires the Indiana Department of Health or its Office of Women’s Health to conduct a study of the number of victims of domestic and sexual violence and why these crimes are underreported.   


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. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.