Court affirms sentence for non-support of 8 kids

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court didn't err in imposing three consecutive sentences following a man's guilty plea to three counts of felony non-support of a dependent because his failure to pay didn't constitute a single episode of criminal activity, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

Charles D. Gilliam appealed his 24-year sentence after he pleaded guilty to three counts of Class C felony non-support of a dependent, following his failure to pay child support for his eight children with three different women. Gilliam believed his failure to pay support between Jan. 1, 2001, and December 21, 2004, was just one bad act and arose from a single episode of criminal conduct.

In Charles Dwayne Gilliam v. State of Indiana, No. 71A03-0808-CR-420, the Court of Appeals disagreed with Gilliam's arguments and his reliance on Boss v. State, 702 N.E.2d 782 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). Boss was charged with non-support of his minor children in 1996; the time periods noted in the charging information were three successive time periods, each separated by a single day. His consecutive sentences were overturned because the charging information alleged his non-support occurred over "contiguous" or successive periods over a short period of time.

But Gilliam's offenses don't constitute a single episode of crime, and he seems to confuse continuous obligation to pay child support with the concept of multiple events constituting a "single episode of conduct," wrote Judge Carr Darden. The charge of his failure to pay child support for three children from one mother can be related without reference in anyway to the details of his failure to pay for his children in the other two counts, wrote the judge.

Judge Michael Barnes concurred in result with the majority but believed it wasn't accurate to analyze Gilliam's arguments regarding consecutive sentencing on the basis of whether his multiple convictions for not paying child support constituted a "single episode of criminal conduct." Instead, he believed it would be sufficient to say consecutive sentences are permissible and justified in the instant case because of the existence of multiple victims.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.