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

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. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  2. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  3. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  4. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  5. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

ADVERTISEMENT