ILNews

Justices order man to be re-sentenced

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man who received 50 years for murder should be re-sentenced because of conflicting amendments involving the penalty for murder at the time the judge handed down the sentence, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled today.

When Clifton Mauricio murdered a man at a car wash in 1994, there were two amendments on the books involving the penalty for murder. The first amendment set a 50-year presumptive sentence with a 60-year maximum and 40-year minimum. The second amendment set a 40-year presumptive sentence with a 60-year maximum and 30-year minimum sentence. The second amendment didn’t incorporate the first one. The statue was later corrected in 1995. The Supreme Court later held that the 40-year presumptive sentence was the correct one to use.

Mauricio received a 50-year sentence for murder in which the trial judge said giving him the maximum sentence was “real tempting” and that only Mauricio’s young age was a mitigating factor. The judge ordered him committed to the Department of Correction for 50 years, “the presumptive sentence” on the murder count.

His sentence was affirmed on direct appeal and his post-conviction relief petition on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel was denied. The Indiana Court of Appeals allowed him to file a successive petition, which the trial court denied and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

In Clifton Mauricio v. State of Indiana, No. 02S03-1009-PC-501, the Supreme Court reversed because Mauricio’s counsel should have clearly raised his sentencing claim on direct appeal that he was sentenced under the incorrect statute.

“To be sure, it is plausible that the trial judge could have intended to sentence Mauricio to fifty years for reasons unrelated to P.L. 164-1994. From this record, however, we cannot say that the trial judge clearly intended to sentence Mauricio to fifty years as a specific term rather than as the presumptive sentence. This is sufficient to meet the Strickland test on prejudice,” wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard.

The high court remanded for re-sentencing. Chief Justice Shepard noted the trial court may use its discretion to impose any appropriate sentence when it re-sentences Mauricio.

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