ILNews

Justices say sentencing scores can be used

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

State trial judges can consider sentencing scores to help tailor penalties to individual defendants, as long as those results aren’t used as final aggravating or mitigating factors in deciding a penalty length, the Indiana Supreme Court says.

In Anthony Malenchik v. State of Indiana, 79S02-0908-CR-365, the court unanimously found that judges can use what are called Level of Service Inventory-Revised, or LSI-R, in order to assess whether an offender is likely to commit more crimes and determine the level of supervision and type of treatment needed.

“Such evidence-based assessment instruments can be significant sources of valuable information for judicial consideration in deciding whether to suspend all or part of a sentence, how to design a probation program for the offender, whether to assign an offender to alternative treatment facilities or programs, and other such corollary sentencing matters,” Justice Brent Dickson wrote in the 15-page decision.

After pleading guilty to receiving stolen property and admitting to being a habitual offender, Malenchik received a six-year sentence with two years suspended. On appeal, the defendant argued the trial judge used the numerical scores as an aggravating circumstance and that his sentence was improper. He argued that it was improper for the judge to use those scores, as those models aren’t scientifically or objectively reliable and that it conflicts with his state constitutional right that the penal code be founded on reformation principles and not vindictive justice. More broadly, he contended that using such scores could lead to “an unwise fundamental change” in Indiana’s sentencing system. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence and score use.

Finding that state judges have judicial flexibility in considering various aspects for sentences, the justices determined that Tippecanoe Superior Judge Les Meade hadn’t used the test scores as aggravating factors against Malenchik.

Pointing out that the Court of Appeals has questioned the legitimacy of sentencing consideration of evidence-based assessment results in this case and another, the justices disagreed based on “a growing body of impressive research supporting the widespread use and efficacy of evidence-based offender assessment tools.”

But in saying the scores can be used, the court clearly noted that these tests are neither “intended nor recommended to substitute for the judicial function of determining the length of sentence appropriate for each offender.”

Justice Dickson wrote, “We defer to the sound discernment and discretion of trial judges to give the tools proper consideration and appropriate weight.”

In an accompanying four-page opinion in J.S. v. State of Indiana, 79S02-1006-CR-296, the court applied that Malenchik rationale in granting transfer and affirming another Tippecanoe Superior judge’s order, keeping intact a convicted child molester’s eight-year sentence on the same grounds.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT