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

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. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

  2. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  3. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  4. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  5. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

ADVERTISEMENT