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. Your article is a good intro the recent amendments to Fed.R.Civ.P. For a much longer - though not necessarily better -- summary, counsel might want to read THE CHIEF UMPIRE IS CHANGING THE STRIKE ZONE, which I co-authored and which was just published in the January issue of THE VERDICT (the monthly publication of the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association).

  2. Thank you, John Smith, for pointing out a needed correction. The article has been revised.

  3. The "National institute for Justice" is an agency for the Dept of Justice. That is not the law firm you are talking about in this article. The "institute for justice" is a public interest law firm. http://ij.org/ thanks for interesting article however

  4. I would like to try to find a lawyer as soon possible I've had my money stolen off of my bank card driver pressed charges and I try to get the information they need it and a Social Security board is just give me a hold up a run around for no reason and now it think it might be too late cuz its been over a year I believe and I can't get the right information they need because they keep giving me the runaroundwhat should I do about that

  5. It is wonderful that Indiana DOC is making some truly admirable and positive changes. People with serious mental illness, intellectual disability or developmental disability will benefit from these changes. It will be much better if people can get some help and resources that promote their health and growth than if they suffer alone. If people experience positive growth or healing of their health issues, they may be less likely to do the things that caused them to come to prison in the first place. This will be of benefit for everyone. I am also so happy that Indiana DOC added correctional personnel and mental health staffing. These are tough issues to work with. There should be adequate staffing in prisons so correctional officers and other staff are able to do the kind of work they really want to do-helping people grow and change-rather than just trying to manage chaos. Correctional officers and other staff deserve this. It would be great to see increased mental health services and services for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities in the community so that fewer people will have to receive help and support in prisons. Community services would like be less expensive, inherently less demeaning and just a whole lot better for everyone.

ADVERTISEMENT