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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT