ILNews

Justices: sentence shouldn't have been upped on appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has ordered that a man’s sentence be reduced after the lower appellate court increased it on appeal.

The justices summarily affirmed the Indiana Court of Appeals ruling affirming the admission of pornographic materials and the admission of evidence of Jeffrey Akard’s silence after his arrest but before being read his rights.

Akard was convicted of two counts of Class A felony rape, one count of Class B felony rape, two counts of Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, one count of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct, two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, and two counts of Class C felony battery for committing a series of violent sexual crimes against an adult woman over several hours.

The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 93 years, accepting the state’s recommended sentence. The trial court ordered the sentences for each count within the group of like offenses to be served concurrently but served consecutively to each of the other groups.

On appeal before the Court of Appeals, the judges decided to increase his sentence because of the heinous, violent acts he committed against the victim. They upheld their decision on rehearing. It was noted at oral arguments before the Indiana Supreme Court on this case that the increase was the first time the Court of Appeals has increased a sentence on appeal. The justices established a standard for sentence revisions in McCullough v. State, 900 N.E.2d 745, 746 (Ind. 2009).

Even though an appellate court has the ability to affirm, reduce or increase a sentence on appeal, the justices concluded that Akard’s original sentence should remain, with one minor change. His sentence on the battery charges should have been two years each, instead of one year, so correcting this increases Akard’s aggregate sentence to 94 years.

“Although the defendant's raising of sentence reasonableness on appeal authorizes appellate consideration of whether the assigned sentence is inappropriately stern or lenient, we decline to increase the sentence here, particularly in the context of the State's request for no greater sentence at trial and its assertion on appeal that such is an appropriate sentence. These are strong indicators that the trial court sentence is not inappropriately lenient,” wrote Justice Brent Dickson in Jeffrey E. Akard v. State of Indiana, No. 79S02-1009-CR-478.  

The case was remanded for sentence modification.
 

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. I just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  2. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  3. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  4. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT