ILNews

Judges uphold sexually violent predator status

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found a defendant failed to establish that the process used to determine his sexually violent predator status constituted a fundamental error, so the court upheld the SVP status.

In Keiyun L. Mays v. State of Indiana, 45A04-1205-CR-287, Keiyun Mays was sentenced to 15 years in prison for Class B felony criminal confinement and found to be a SVP. Mays attacked his ex-girlfriend’s sister in the middle of the night with a tire iron and stabbed her several times. He argued on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him, the state produced insufficient evidence to sustain the SVP finding, and the SVP interview process violated his right against self-incrimination as to constitute fundamental error.

The Court of Appeals rejected all of Mays’ arguments.

Mays was charged with several crimes, including rape, for which he was not convicted. He argued the trial court considered his rape charge based on the court’s sentencing order, which erroneously indicated the jury found him guilty of rape. But that is just a scrivener’s error and the order issued by the court at the end of the trial clearly shows the jury did not convict him of rape.

The judges declined to reweigh the evidence regarding whether the state produced sufficient evidence to sustain the SVP finding, and found the trial court did not commit fundamental error by admitting statements Mays made to two court-appointed psychiatrists who examined Mays to determine whether he was an SVP. Mays told one doctor he intended to rape D.K. and told another doctor his motive for his crime was sexual. He did not object to the admittance of these statements during the SVP evaluation process.

“… the SVP procedure here was a post-conviction evaluation that did not produce any admissions that contributed to any criminal convictions, only, in this case, to the determination of Mays’s SVP status,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote. “…Mays was informed prior to trial that he had the right to remain silent and that anything he said could be used against him.”

 

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT