ILNews

Criminal code overhaul shifts focus to sentencing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The exploding prison population was a key motivator for revising the state’s criminal code, but an independent research group has concluded the new statute will cause a quicker increase in the number of inmates.

Applied Research Services Inc. detailed its analysis of the new criminal code contained in HEA 1006 to the members of the Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Committee Dec. 10. The Atlanta-based company projected that with judges continuing to hand down sentences similar in duration to the ones they hand down now, the prison population will balloon to 35,504 by 2024.

This prediction outpaces all others.

Current law is expected to increase the number of inmates at the Indiana Department of Correction from today’s 29,500 population to a little more than 31,000 by 2024. The DOC estimated that under the new criminal code, the population will

rise by 2,000 inmates between 2014 and 2024. The model by the Indiana Legislative Services Agency has the population decreasing between 1,200 and 1,600 inmates by 2025.

Although the belief is that the Department of Correction will reach capacity at 30,000 inmates, John Speir of ARS cautioned the committee from interpreting the number as a “construction issue.” The predicted population, he said, does not mean the DOC is facing a crucial mass.

The new criminal code is the first major overhaul of the state’s criminal statute since 1977. It changes felonies from the current four levels to six and revises the penalties to make the punishment proportional to the offense. It also calls for low-level offenders to be kept in the local communities for mental health and addiction treatment rather than being sent to the DOC.

Advocates for the new code say putting nonviolent defendants into programs within their own communities will reduce the number of repeat offenders.
 

steuerwald Steuerwald

“The goal is to deal with low-level nonviolent offenders in a different manner,” said Rep. Greg Steuerwald, R-Avon. “As a result of this goal, we believe the DOC population should go down.”

Passed during the 2013 legislative session, the criminal code revisions are not scheduled to take effect until July 1, 2014. The Indiana General Assembly purposefully built in the delay to give the interim study committee the opportunity to review the bill and suggest changes.

Sentencing

Now the committee is turning its focus to the new code’s sentencing grid. Four committee members – Reps. Steuerwald, Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, and Jud McMillin, R-Brookville, along with Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford – will examine the bill’s penalty structure and recommend changes with an eye toward lowering the number incarcerated.

How much time an offender should receive is a point of contention among the different factions represented on the committee. In advocating for their respective proposals, each group defines their positions in broad terms like improving public safety and ensuring the legal system is fair and just.

The Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council is proposing the advisory sentences in the new code be raised and that more sentences become nonsuspendable.

Under current law, the minimum sentence is not suspendable for a defendant with a prior felony conviction. HEA 1006 wiped away that requirement and gave judges broader discretion in choosing which sentences to suspend.

The IPAC, said executive director David Powell, does not think repeat felons should get what he called a free pass.


willis-maryjan-bw-mug.jpg Willis

Pushing back against limiting judicial discretion is the Indiana Judges Association. During the Dec. 10 meeting, Henry Circuit Judge Mary Willis presented the committee with a resolution that opposes reducing or eliminating the discretion of judges to sentence criminals. This includes being able to suspend sentences when appropriate.

Requiring mandatory maximums and increasing the number of nonsuspendable sentences limits a judge’s flexibility to weigh the facts and fashion the best penalty, Willis said. Restricting what judges can do shifts the balance of power by making one person in the sentencing process both prosecutor and judge.

Larry Landis, executive director of the Indiana Public Defender Council, was glad the judges are taking a position. He has long pleaded with them to speak up or, he asserted, the freedom that the new criminal code gives them will be taken away, and they will be reduced to rubber stamping whatever sentence their prosecutors recommend.

To lower the population in the state’s penitentiaries, the Public Defender Council is advocating changing the good-time credit to allow inmates to more quickly reduce their time behind bars through good behavior. The organization also is recommending lowering the maximum penalties for lower-level offenders and that judges be given an incentive to impose the advisory sentence.

Assumptions

In his analysis of the new criminal code’s impact, Speir said Applied Research assumed that judges would be slow to change how they currently sentence offenders. He did not believe that judges would suspend more sentences even though HEA 1006 provides them greater ability to do so. Also, he expected that judges would not adopt the new advisory sentences quickly.


surbeck Surbeck

Addressing the committee, Allen Superior Judge John Surbeck dispelled the last assumption. He described sentencing as a process where the judge begins with the advisory sentence then adds and subtracts years by weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors.

Steuerwald said Surbeck’s testimony made an impression on the committee. The thought, previously, was that judges work toward a number. Surbeck clarified that the point of the process is not to get to a specific prison term but at a sentence that fits the crime.

Likewise, Willis countered the assumption that judges would be reluctant to suspend more sentences. She said she often suspends a portion of sentences in order to be able to monitor and help individuals as they transition back into the community from prison. Without keeping back part of a sentence, the court would have no oversight over returning inmates.

Steuerwald was supportive of allowing judges to suspend more sentences.

“They don’t have to suspend sentences, they just have added discretion,” he said. “It gives them the ability to make the sentence fit the facts of the crime.”

Committee member and Bartholomew Circuit Judge Stephen Heimann said he has concerns about the impact of the new criminal statute on plea agreements. He wondered with the lower advisory sentences if prosecutors will try to get a longer prison term by not allowing defendants to plead to a lesser crime.

This, Heimann said, could impact the sentence imposed more than the judge not following the new law.

Startling jump

Speir reviewed Indiana’s past incarceration rate and found, like many states, the growth of the prison population flattened during the latter part of the Great Recession. However, in 2013, new admissions to the DOC jumped 9 percent.

He considered that hike an anomaly and expected Indiana will return to an average annual increase of 1 to 2 percent. If the new admissions continue at 9 percent, he said, the growth would become unsustainable within three years.

The jump in new inmates will be a strong motivator for the Legislature as it considers making changes to the new code before it takes effect, Steuerwald said.

“We have a 9 percent increase under current law,” he said. “We either keep pouring money into the DOC or we make changes, as a lot of other states have done, and we reap the benefits.”•

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

ADVERTISEMENT