ILNews

Judge reduces death sentences to life without parole

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

If he’d had the ability more than three years ago to factor in a jury’s deadlocked view on the death penalty, a southern Indiana judge says he would have imposed life without parole rather than the death penalty for a man convicted of triple murder.

But he didn’t have that ability then, and it wasn’t until the Indiana Supreme Court re-evaluated precedent almost two years ago that trial judges throughout the state got that chance.

On Aug. 12, Vanderburgh Circuit Judge Carl Heldt did what he’d wanted to years ago – modify a death sentence for convicted killer Danny Ray Wilkes and instead order he serve three terms of life without parole.

The judge’s Post-Conviction Relief order came in the case of Wilkes v. State, No. C01-1009-PC-612, the latest in a line of court decisions since the triple-murder trial ended in late 2007.

Wilkes was convicted in December 2007 on three murder counts for the April 2006 killings of an Evansville mother and her two daughters, ages 8 and 13. While jurors agreed on the guilt phase of the trial, they came back deadlocked 11-1 on the penalty Wilkes should face for the crimes. Judge Heldt, serving as a special judge in the case tried in Clark Circuit Court, sentenced Wilkes to death. That marked the first time any Indiana judge had faced that issue since state law had changed and required judges to follow juries’ sentencing recommendations in capital cases. Before that, judges needed only to consider juries’ recommendations and could enter a different penalty in capital cases.

The Indiana Supreme Court in December 2009 upheld the death sentences against Wilkes, finding nothing wrong with how Judge Heldt had applied the law and precedent in place at the time. But the court re-evaluated its stance on what it means when a jury fails to recommend a sentence in a capital case, and chose a new direction from what had been done in the past.

A divided court in 1992 had held no meaning should be interpreted from a jury’s failure to reach a recommendation on death, nor should it be considered a mitigating factor during the penalty phase. That view was upheld in subsequent cases, but when Wilkes’ case appeared before the justices in 2009, Justice Theodore Boehm wrote that an increased emphasis on the role of juries in sentencing during the past decade gave the court reason to reconsider that precedent.

With its ruling, the justices set a new standard for future cases: a jury’s uncertainty could be a relevant consideration for a trial judge to consider in determining the appropriate sentence. Justice Brent Dickson dissented and wrote that he continued to believe a jury’s inability to reach a unanimous sentencing recommendation on death shouldn’t be a factor.

That set the stage for Judge Heldt’s decision Aug. 12, after the PCR proceedings played out during a two-day hearing in June. The Indiana Public Defender’s Office represented Wilkes and argued he should receive a new trial on various issues, such as ineffective assistance of trial counsel and evidence insufficiency. Judge Heldt denied all of Wilkes’ PCR claims, but decided the death sentences should be modified.

"Had this Court had the authority to consider the jury's inability to reach a penalty recommendation at the time of its original sentencing order, it would have sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment without parole," Judge Heldt wrote in his 50-page order. “This court finds that the inability of a jury to recommend the death penalty is a significant consideration."

Citing one of the landmark cases from 1976 that reinstated the death penalty nationwide, Judge Heldt described the death penalty as "society’s ultimate criminal sanction" and wrote that the jury’s indecision must be weighed against all the other aggravating and mitigating factors in this case. That leads him to conclude that Wilkes should receive a sentence of life without parole for each of the three murder counts. The judge wrote that if he’d had that chance to consider the deadlocked jury issue before, his ruling would have been different. Now, it would be “manifestly unjust to allow this Court’s ruling to remain unchanged.”

The Office of the Indiana Attorney General hasn’t yet reached a decision on whether to appeal, according to spokesman Bryan Corbin. Procedurally, the state can ask the Indiana Supreme Court to hear the case and then take the case to the federal courts for consideration.

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. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT