ILNews

Justices reduce molester's sentence to 110 years

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court found that an enhanced sentence for a man convicted of nine counts of molesting his girlfriend’s young daughter is warranted, but reduced the man’s 324-year sentence to 110 years.

In the 5-page unanimous opinion in Randy Horton v. State of Indiana, No. 48S04-1106-CR-386, the justices summarily affirmed the Indiana Court of Appeals decision to uphold Randy Horton’s convictions of six counts of Class A felony child molesting and three counts as Class C felonies. The convictions stem from his repeated abuse of his girlfriend’s 7-year-old daughter while her mother slept. The abuse damaged her bowels and led to her contracting two types of herpes.

The high court took Horton’s case to address his sentencing claims. Horton was sentenced to the maximum of 50 years on the Class A felony counts and eight years on the Class C felony counts, which were imposed consecutively.

“Like the prosecutor, the trial court judge, and the judges on the Court of Appeals, our heart goes out to the innocent child who was a victim of Horton’s crimes,” wrote Justice Frank Sullivan.

The justices agreed that Horton’s sentence should be enhanced above the advisory level because of the abuse of trust caused by the molestations, as well as the frequency of the acts. They also cited that he should receive credit for his lack of adult criminal history.

Citing Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008), the justices reduced his sentence to a total of 110 years. They supported the enhancement of one Class A felony conviction to 50 years, but revised his remaining Class A felonies to the 30-year advisory term. The Class C felonies were also reduced to their advisory term of four years. The sentences on three of the Class A felonies will be served consecutively to make the 110-year sentence, with the rest of the sentences being served concurrently.

The justices ordered the trial court to issue an amended sentencing order and issue or make any other documents or docket entries necessary to impose a revised sentence consistent with the opinion.
 

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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

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

  3. 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?

  4. 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"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT