ILNews

High court divided on revising molester's sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two justices dissented from their colleague’s decision to reduce a child molester’s sentence more than 50 years, believing the opinion “blurs the guidance” given in a 2008 opinion regarding sentence reviews.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, Justice Frank Sullivan, and Justice Robert Rucker, who authored the majority opinion in Donald A. Pierce v. State of Indiana, No. 13S04-1101-CR-7, held Donald Pierce’s 134-year sentence should be reduced to 80 years based on the nature of the offense and Pierce’s character. Pierce was convicted of three counts of Class A felony child molesting and one Class C felony count of child molesting involving the molestation of his girlfriend’s daughter while the girlfriend was at work.

The trial court sentenced him to 124 years, suspended 10 years to probation, but then enhanced the sentence by 10 years for the repeat sexual offender adjudication. Pierce had been convicted in 1999 of Class C felony child molesting. The Indiana Court of Appeals remanded with instructions to attach the additional fixed 10-year term to one of his Class A felony sentences for an aggregate term of 134 years.

The high court took Pierce’s case to address his sentence appropriateness claim. The majority found Pierce was in a position of trust, and repeatedly molested the girl for more than a year. However, the three Class A felony counts were identical and involved the same child, wrote Justice Rucker. Pierce’s sentence should be enhanced, but not on each of the Class A felonies or by imposing four consecutive sentences.

The majority also noted that Pierce had no criminal record beyond the prior child molesting conviction. They ordered one of his Class A felony counts be enhanced to 40 years, the other two counts should receive the advisory 30-year sentence, and that he receive the four-year advisory sentence on the Class C felony count. The enhanced sentence will be served concurrently with the others for a total of 70 years, with the 10-year enhancement for the repeat sexual offender adjudication attached to the enhanced Class A felony count for a total of 80 years. They remanded for the trial court to determine if and what extent any portion of the sentence should be suspended to probation.

Justices Steven David and Brent Dickson dissented, deciding that the original sentence should stand, minus the concurrent 10-year enhancement mistakenly given by the trial judge. They were concerned that the majority opinion usurps the high court’s limited role and sets aside the guidance it gave in Cardwell v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1219 (2008), which held that “appellate review should focus on the forest — the aggregate sentence — rather than the trees — consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.”

“Here the trial court judge did exactly what he was supposed to do — exercise discretion within the required statutory and case law framework. I fear this opinion blurs the guidance in Cardwell and is more akin to a second guessing by this Court,” wrote Justice David. “This is a case where the discretion and judgment of the trial court should not be overturned.”

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT