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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT