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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT