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
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