ILNews

Enhancement not allowed for attempted crimes

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals overturned a sentence enhancement for a man convicted of attempted rape. The enhancement was for being a repeat sexual offender, but attempted rape is not a crime listed under the repeat sex offender statute that allows for the enhancement.

In William E. Wright v. State of Indiana, No. 48A02-0708-PC-678, the Court of Appeals agreed with Wright that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance in regards to challenging the sentence enhancement and that Wright's petition for post-conviction relief should have been granted.

Wright had been found guilty of attempted rape, criminal confinement, and battery resulting in injury. The state also filed additional information, alleging Wright was a repeat sexual offender. On the day he was convicted, Wright's counsel got him to admit he was a repeat sexual offender.

Wright appealed his convictions, and the Court of Appeals had remanded to the trial court to correct the judgment because attempted rape and criminal confinement convictions had violated double jeopardy principles. The trial court sentenced Wright to 20 years for attempted rape and enhanced the sentence by eight years for being a repeat sexual offender. He was also sentenced to one year for battery causing injury.

Wright filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective trial and appellate counsel assistance because they failed to challenge his repeat sex offender enhancement. The post-conviction court denied his petition.

The Court of Appeals' decision to reverse Wright's repeat sexual offender enhancement hinged upon the word "attempted." Wright was convicted of attempted rape, not rape. Wright argued his circumstance is similar to that in Ellis v. State, 736 N.E.2d 731, 737 (Ind. 2000), in which the Supreme Court ruled that if the legislature had intended for a list of crimes of violence to include other crimes, then the offense would have appeared in the statute. In Ellis' case, he appealed his sentence under Indiana Code 35-50-1-2(a), the consecutive and concurrent terms statute, which did not list any attempted crimes under "crimes of violence." Ellis had been convicted of attempted murder.

Just like the consecutive and concurrent terms statute, the repeat sex offender statute doesn't list any specific reference to attempted crimes.

Judge Patricia Riley wrote that the Court of Appeals must apply the rule of lenity and conclude the crime of attempted rape isn't included as an offense under the repeat sex offender statute. Thus, Wright's trial counsel erroneously got Wright to admit to being a repeat sex offender and his appellate counsel provided deficient performance for failing to allege Wright's trial counsel was ineffective for this reason or to argue the enhancement was a fundamental error.

The appeals court remands to trial court to adjust Wright's sentence because if the trial counsel had effectively argued this point, his sentence would not have been enhanced.
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. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT