ILNews

Justices order modification of sentence of convicted child caseworker to comply with plea agreement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former child protective services caseworker convicted of sex crimes in Hamilton and Elkhart counties should have his sentence modified to comport with his plea agreement, the Indiana Supreme Court ordered.

In an order published Dec. 13 and posted on the court’s website on Monday, justices unanimously remanded Cory Heinzman v. State of Indiana, 29S02-1212-CR-678, to Hamilton Superior Court. That court had sentenced Heinzman to three years executed on a conviction of Class D felony sexual battery for an Elkhart County crime to be served concurrently with a 24-year sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of 16 counts, including official misconduct and various sexual offenses involving minors.

The Indiana Court of Appeals noted that entering the executed sentence was error, but that it was harmless because the sentences were to run concurrently. “We agree with the first issue in Heinzman’s transfer petition that the case should have been remanded for resentencing consistent with the plea agreement,” Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote for the court.

“The case is remanded to the Hamilton Superior Court with instructions to impose sentence in cause number 20D02-0805-FC-46 consistent with the terms of the plea agreement. In all other respects, the decision of the Court of Appeals is summarily affirmed.”    




 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Absurd
    So, now case workers can get a smack on the hand for molesting a child. Absurd, unreal

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. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT