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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT