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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Great observation Smith. By my lights, speaking personally, they already have. They counted my religious perspective in a pro-life context as a symptom of mental illness and then violated all semblance of due process to banish me for life from the Indiana bar. The headline reveals the truth of the Hoosier elite's animus. Details here: Denied 2016 petition for cert (this time around): (“2016Pet”) Amicus brief 2016: (“2016Amici”) As many may recall, I was banned for five years for failing to "repent" of my religious views on life and the law when a bar examiner demanded it of me, resulting in a time out to reconsider my "clinging." The time out did not work, so now I am banned for life. Here is the five year time out order: Denied 2010 petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): (“2010Pet”) Read this quickly if you are going to read it, the elites will likely demand it be pulled down or pile comments on to bury it. (As they have buried me.)

  2. if the proabortion zealots and intolerant secularist anti-religious bigots keep on shutting down every hint of religious observance in american society, or attacking every ounce of respect that the state may have left for it, they may just break off their teeth.

  3. "drug dealers and traffickers need to be locked up". "we cannot afford just to continue to build prisons". "drug abuse is strangling many families and communities". "establishing more treatment and prevention programs will also be priorities". Seems to be what politicians have been saying for at least three decades now. If these are the most original thoughts these two have on the issues of drug trafficking and drug abuse, then we're no closer to solving the problem than we were back in the 90s when crack cocaine was the epidemic. We really need to begin demanding more original thought from those we elect to office. We also need to begin to accept that each of us is part of the solution to a problem that government cannot solve.

  4. What is with the bias exclusion of the only candidate that made sense, Rex Bell? The Democrat and Republican Party have created this problem, why on earth would anyone believe they are able to fix it without pushing government into matters it doesn't belong?

  5. This is what happens when daddy hands over a business to his moron son and thinks that everything will be ok. this bankruptcy is nothing more than Gary pulling the strings to never pay the creditors that he and his son have ripped off. they are scum and they know it.