ILNews

Justices reinstate 80-year sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Disagreeing with the Court of Appeals, which ordered a convicted child molester’s sentence cut in half, the Indiana Supreme Court reinstated John Kimbrough III’s 80-year aggregate sentence for molesting his former girlfriend’s two young daughters.

A jury convicted Kimbrough of four Class A felony and two Class C felony child molesting charges, but merged the Class C felonies into the Class A felonies. He received an 80-year sentence. A divided Court of Appeals ordered Kimbrough’s sentence revised to an aggregate term of 40 years after finding the trial court abused its discretion.

Justice Robert Rucker noted in John Kimbrough, III v. State of Indiana, 45S04-1212-CR-687, that the high court disagreed with the appellate judges for several reasons.

“First, it is certainly true that a trial court may abuse its discretion where the sentencing statement omits reasons that are clearly supported by the record and advanced for consideration,” he wrote. “But in this case the trial court’s sentencing statement did not omit consideration of Kimbrough’s lack of a criminal history.”

“Second, by describing Kimbrough’s lack of criminal history as a ‘substantial mitigating factor,’ and remanding this case with instructions to impose a reduced sentence, the Court of Appeals majority implicitly suggested the trial court should have given greater weight to this factor,” he continued.

“In summary, because the trial court correctly entered its sentencing statement in compliance with the dictates of Anglemyer and because the ‘appropriateness’ of a sentence has no bearing on whether a sentence is erroneous, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Kimbrough’s sentence. Further, Kimbrough did not seek review and revision of his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule (7)(B).”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Tyranny is upon us!
    If a court of appeals reduces a sentence the supreme court has no right to overule that court except to reduce the sentence even more! Courts seem to think they can rule on any matter any way they choose as it suits them irregardless of constitutional law!

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. 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.

  5. 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."

ADVERTISEMENT