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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT