ILNews

COA revises child molesting sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a man's convictions of child molesting, but reduced his sentence because he can't be considered among the worst offenders to justify the maximum sentence.

In Paul L. Mishler v. State, No. 20A03-0712-CR-577, Paul Mishler appealed his convictions of two counts of molesting his girlfriend's grade-school age daughter and his 50-year aggregate sentence. Mishler argued his victim's pretrial statements and videotaped interview shouldn't have been admitted into trial because they were inadmissible under the Protected Person Statute and he didn't have the opportunity to confront the accuser. 

The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding the child's pretrial statements and videotaped interview did fall under the Protected Person Statute because nothing suggests the child was coached into giving her statements and she made the statements within hours after the allegations of the crime came to light, wrote Chief Judge John Baker.

Mishler's argument that he was denied his right to confront the victim fails because the victim testified at the Protected Person hearing, at Mishler's trial, and was available for cross-examination. The ruling in Crawford v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (2004), only applies to a non-testifying witness' out-of-court testimonial statement, wrote the chief judge.

The appellate court found the sentence to be inappropriate given the nature of the offenses and Mishler's character. The sentencing range for a Class A felony is 20 to 50 years in prison, with the maximum sentence generally being reserved for the worst offenders. Mishler was sentenced to 50 years in prison on both Class A child molesting counts, with the sentences to run concurrently. However, given the fact he has a limited criminal history and the amount of time that has passed since his juvenile adjudication in 1991 for three acts that would be child molesting if committed by an adult, the Court of Appeals can't categorize Mishler as one of the worst offenders, wrote Chief Judge Baker. The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court to revise the sentence to 38 years on each count to run concurrently.

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT