ILNews

Criminal law committee sends sentencing bill to Legislature

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

What was called the key to making Indiana’s new criminal code work has received a nod of approval and is now headed to the Legislature.

The Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee concluded its work Dec. 19 by approving a handful of proposed bills, including one on sentencing. Committee Chair, R. Michael Young, R-Indianapolis, said he felt good about what the interim group was able to accomplish this summer and fall.

Much of the focus of the committee’s agenda has been on reducing the rate of recidivism in the state and devising a sentencing grid for the new criminal code contained in HEA 1006, passed during the 2013 session. Sentencing became the hot-button issue as prosecutors pushed for stiffening the penalties and public defenders advocated for lowering the maximum prison terms for low-level offenders.

Young appointed four committee members – Republicans Sen. Brent Steele, and Reps. Greg Steuerwald and Jud McMillin, along with Democrat Rep. Matt Pierce – to draft changes to the sentencing portion of HEA 1006.

The bill’s provisions include:
* limiting the number of times an offender may file a petition to modify a sentence
* removing the requirement that courts hold a hearing on petitions to modify
* requiring additional prison terms for habitual offenders
* increasing advisory sentences for Level Three, Four and Five felonies
* increasing the number of crimes for which sentences are nonsuspendible
* requiring education credit time be deducted from the release date
* removing the requirement that the courts explain their reasoning when imposing the advisory sentences

Steele, chair of the sentencing workgroup, said the four legislators took ideas from prosecutors and public defenders to craft a bill that would lower the inmate population at the Indiana Department of Correction and provide effective treatment alternatives for low-level offenders.

He said sentencing policy is the key to making HEA 1006 work.

The committee passed the draft on a 9 to 4 vote. David Powell, executive director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council voted yes. Both Larry Landis, executive director of the Indiana Public Defender Council, and Randy Koester, deputy commissioner of re-entry for the DOC, voted against the measure. They cited concerns that the sentencing structure would increase the prison population and overload the state’s penal system.

The committee also unanimously approved a draft proposal that established a mental-health pilot project in Marion County to provide mental health and addiction services to offenders who are released from prison.

A bill establishing another pilot project in Marion County drew heavy opposition. Authored by Young, the measure would create a three-year program to consolidate community corrections and the probation department.

Stakeholders in the criminal justice system asked the committee to scrap the bill and allow them to write the legislation. They were concerned about what they saw as a top-down approach.

Young emphasized the bill will only impact Marion County and that he intends to listen to the stakeholders to improve the draft during the legislative session. Other committee members noted the measure was imperfect but it offered a good starting point to craft something better.

The proposed legislation narrowly passed with an 8 to 5 vote.

Finally, the committee unanimously approved a proposal by Rep. Christina Hale, D-Indianapolis, to study the underreporting of certain crimes.

Hale’s bill requires the Commission on Improving the Status of Children in Indiana to study the underreporting of crimes against children. It also requires the Indiana Department of Health or its Office of Women’s Health to conduct a study of the number of victims of domestic and sexual violence and why these crimes are underreported.   
 

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