ILNews

Attorney must register as a sex offender

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An attorney and former Democratic candidate for Gibson County prosecutor indicted on charges including possession of child pornography and false informing, entered into a plea agreement Tuesday that wouldn’t have required he register as a sex offender. After further review, the trial judge realized Indiana law requires him to do so.

William Wallace was indicted in June 2010 on charges of Class D felonies obstruction of justice and possession of child pornography, Class A misdemeanor patronizing a prostitute, and Class B misdemeanor false informing. He also faced a Class D felony voyeurism charge. The charges stem from Wallace allegedly videotaping himself having sex with a former client and employee without her permission. He allegedly told the client that if the two had sex, he would write off money she owed him for legal fees. When police executed a search warrant of his home, they took computers, on which they found child pornography.

Wallace entered into a guilty plea Tuesday in Gibson Superior Court, pleading guilty to the Class D felonies obstruction of justice and possession of child pornography. Those convictions would be amended to Class A misdemeanors upon successful completion of probation and as long as Wallace had no other arrests or convictions while serving his sentence. He was sentenced to 18 months at the Indiana Department of Correction, with the first 90 days served on GPS home detention and the remainder served on probation. He also had to pay court costs and fines, complete 50 hours of community service and attend counseling.

As part of his plea agreement, he would not be required to register as a sex offender because the conviction would later be amended to a misdemeanor. But this is not permitted under Indiana law, Judge Earl Penrod concluded at a hearing Thursday afternoon. The judge issued an amended sentencing order that kept the original sentence intact except for Wallace’s Class D felony conviction of possession of child pornography.

Indiana law requires someone convicted of child pornography to register as a sex offender, contrary to what was discussed during negotiations and court proceedings, Penrod wrote in the amended sentencing order. He gave Wallace the option of withdrawing his guilty plea or allowing the original plea to stand with corrections made regarding the child pornography conviction. Wallace chose to not withdraw his previous plea of guilty and objected to the correcting of the sentence.

The Class D felony will not be amended to a Class A misdemeanor and now Wallace must register as a sex offender.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Wallace also offered his intent to plead guilty to the Class D felony voyeurism charge, which is currently before the Indiana Court of Appeals on interlocutory appeal regarding whether that charge can stand. Penrod took his intent to plead guilty under advisement until the COA makes its decision.
 

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT