ILNews

Court: Murderer not eligible for parole

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that a man serving two life sentences for his 1975 murder convictions isn't eligible to seek parole under the laws in effect at the time the murders took place, but could seek clemency though the Indiana Parole Board.

In State of Indiana v. Steve Hernandez, No. 45S00-0806-CR-377, both the state and Steve Hernandez appealed rulings made by the court concerning Hernandez's petition for post-conviction relief. He was convicted of two counts of murder in 1975 and sentenced to two terms of life in prison.

Hernandez filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming the trial court had only sentenced him to one life sentence because according to the record, it appeared the trial court recited the murder and robbery counts in the wrong order in one cause such that a withheld sentence applied to one of the murder counts. He also argued the parole board, by applying 1979 statute Indiana Code Section 11-13-3-2(b)(3) to his convictions, had denied him consideration for parole in violation of ex post facto clauses in the U.S. and state constitutions. The post-conviction court held the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him, but denied his petition regarding his sentencing.

The Supreme Court affirmed the post-conviction court's denial of relief based on the alleged sentencing error. Hernandez never raised on direct appeal that his sentence was improper, so he is foreclosed from raising the claim in post-conviction court, wrote Justice Frank Sullivan. Hernandez's argument of the sentencing being a fundamental error also fails because there's no basis for it to apply in this case.

Next, the high court had to determine whether Hernandez would be eligible for parole based on law at the time he was convicted. The justices reversed the post-conviction court's finding that I.C. Section 11-13-3-2(b)(3) was unconstitutional as applied to Hernandez. The constitutional provisions are only implicated if he was otherwise eligible to be considered for parole except for the enactment of the statute; however, because he wasn't, there is no ex post facto clause violation.

The justices adopted the majority opinion in White v. Indiana Parole Board, 713 N.E.2d 327 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), which held people serving life sentences weren't eligible to be considered for parole. The Supreme Court has held people serving life sentences aren't eligible for good time credit because a life sentence is neither determinate nor indeterminate, which should apply to the eligibility to be considered for parole, wrote Justice Sullivan. A statute enacted in 1974 set parole eligibility only for people serving indeterminate or determinate terms of imprisonment.

The Supreme Court also revisited its ruling in Johnston v. Dobeski, 739 N.E.2d 121 (Ind. 2000), which the post-conviction court relied on to find that a person under a life sentence in 1975 had been eligible for parole until the enactment of I.C. Section 11-13-2-2(b)(3). But given the ruling in White and its analysis in the instant case, the high court overruled its portion of Johnston that held life sentences were indeterminate and that a person serving a life sentence was eligible for consideration of parole.

The Supreme Court determined Hernandez is eligible to seek clemency in the same manner that other prisoners sentenced to life did during 1962-1973: He can ask for clemency from the Indiana Parole Board, who can then forward it on to the governor if they consider his petition to be meritorious, wrote Justice Sullivan. Prisoners used to be able to petition the Indiana Clemency Commission; in 1979, the commission was abolished and the Parole Board formally assumed those duties.

Hernandez should warrant consideration of clemency based on his taking responsibility for his crimes and working hard to improve himself while incarcerated. Should he be successful in having his sentences commuted to a term of years, then he would be eligible to seek parole, wrote Justice Sullivan.

The case is remanded to the post-conviction court to enter judgment in favor of the state.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT