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

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