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.”


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.