ILNews

Killer’s 50-year conspiracy sentence vacated as double jeopardy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The sentence of a man convicted of killing his ex-wife was reduced by 50 years Tuesday when the Indiana Court of Appeals granted in part his petition for post-conviction relief.

James R. Willey was convicted in the 1997 strangulation and bludgeoning death of Janice Willey in the garage of her Zionsville home. The state alleged James Willey had hired a friend, Roger Barnard, to kill Janice Willey, but Barnard killed himself shortly after her death, according to the record. A jury found Willey guilty of felony murder, conspiracy to commit aggravated battery, conspiracy to commit burglary, involuntary manslaughter and burglary.

Willey was sentenced to 65 years in prison for felony murder and 50 years on the burglary conspiracy conviction, to be served consecutively for an aggregate 115-year term. His convictions and sentence were affirmed by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1999. On Tuesday, the Court of Appeals in a not-for-publication opinion Tuesday found persuasive caselaw since the crime and sentencing to lift the 50-year sentence.

“We reject all of Willey’s claims but one – his claim that his convictions for conspiracy to commit burglary and felony murder violate Indiana’s constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, and trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to raise this argument,” Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote for the panel in James R. Willey v. State of Indiana (NFP), 06A05-1306-PC-268.

“In light of our Supreme Court’s holding in Grinstead v. State, 845 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind. 2006), we must agree, and therefore vacate his fifty-year sentence for conspiracy to commit burglary.”

Willey, now 69, is held in the Pendleton Correctional Facility. His earliest projected release date had been 2054, according to the Indiana Department of Correction. With the 50-year sentence lifted, he now would be eligible for release in 2029, according to DOC guidelines.

 

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT