ILNews

COA affirms sexually violent predator findings

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the finding that two defendants are sexually violent predators, ruling the state had produced sufficient evidence to support the determinations under the versions of the sexually violent predator statute used by the trial courts in each case.

In Johanna P. Williams v. State, No. 47A05-0802-CR-101 and Ronald Lynn Scott Jr. v. State, No. 82A04-0802-CR-85, Johanna Williams and Ronald Lynn Scott Jr. challenged the findings that they were sexually violent predators. The Court of Appeals mentioned its decisions in both cases in the two opinions.

Williams pleaded guilty to child molesting as a Class C felony and sexual misconduct with a minor as a Class C felony following two incidents involving her niece and a foster child in her sister's care. Scott pleaded guilty to three counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor following an incident with his niece.

Williams challenged her enhanced sentence under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), arguing she is entitled to the former presumptive sentencing scheme since she committed her crimes in March 2005. The Court of Appeals found the facts underlying the aggravator - that Williams was in a position of trust with her victims - wasn't established by the state. The facts underlying the aggravator weren't found by a jury nor admitted by Williams or her attorney, wrote Judge Patricia Riley. The appellate court remanded to allow the state to establish a position of trust aggravator consistent with Blakely. If the state elects not to do so, the trial court is to re-sentence Williams without any aggravators, wrote the judge.

The three-judge panel affirmed the findings Williams and Scott were sexually violent predators, ruling there was sufficient evidence to support the determination. The trial court in Williams’ case operated under the terms of the amended 2006/2007 statutes in effect at the time of her sexually violent predator and sentencing hearing, where in Scott’s case, the trial court used the 2004 statutes, wrote Judge Riley.

In both cases, Williams and Scott met the criteria to be considered sexual violent predators. Several pieces of evidence support the SVP finding against Williams, including her lack of remorse, a doctor’s diagnosis of Williams with pedophilia, alcohol abuse, personality disorder, and a brain injury, and the doctor’s testimony Williams is a sexually violent predator, wrote the judge.

As in Williams, the two doctors who evaluated Scott didn’t agree he was a sexually violent predator; however, with the one doctor’s report Scott is likely to offend again, Scott’s previous conviction for attempted child molesting, and his lack of remorse, there is enough evidence to support the SVP finding, wrote Judge Riley.
 

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. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT