Lawmakers discuss sentencing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

At the Oct. 19 meeting of the Indiana Criminal Code Evaluation Commission, lawmakers heard proposals that aim to reduce the number of inmates housed in the Indiana Department of Correction. Presented for review were plans to assign more offenders to community rehabilitative programs and to restructure felony classes.

Deborah Daniels, a partner with Krieg DeVault, presented recommendations from the commission’s work group. She said that Indiana’s current system of classifying felonies as A, B, C or D class may lead to sentences that are inappropriately harsh for a given offense. As an example, she said that dealing in less than three grams of cocaine or a narcotic is currently a Class B felony, but that anything more than three grams – whether that’s four grams or 20 grams – automatically makes the crime a Class A felony.

Daniels said the working group proposes felonies to be assessed in levels, numbered one through six, with a Level 1 felony being assessed only for meth lab explosions causing serious bodily injury to someone other than the manufacturer or causing property damage in excess of $10,000. Under the working group’s Felony Proportionality Proposal, dealing less than three grams of cocaine would be a Level 5 felony; between three and 10 grams would be a Level 4 felony; between 10 and 28 grams would be a Level 3 felony; and an amount higher than 28 grams would merit a Level 2 felony.

The commission discussed sentence enhancements, with Sen. Lindel Hume, D-Princeton, interjecting.

“It concerns me that we have this 1,000 feet from a school enhancement,” he said. He said he knows of instances where police who have arrested someone on a drug offense have offered that offender a reduced sentence if he or she can stage another deal. And Hume said that police sometimes try to ensure that a staged drug deal is within 1,000 feet of a school, resulting in an enhanced sentence, which Hume said is bordering on entrapment.

“If it’s at midnight and you’re within 1,000 feet of a school, there are no children that will be present,” Hume said. Daniels said that a better approach may be to rewrite that enhancement to specify that a child would have to be within 1,000 feet of the drug deal for the enhancement to apply.


Rep. Ralph Foley, R-Martinsville, said, “Through the years, I’ve become less enamored with geography as a criminal element, unless it puts other people or children at risk.”

Daniels also offered revisions to marijuana charges, which would reclassify as misdemeanors several offenses that are currently felonies. Driver’s license suspension would no longer accompany marijuana charges, as she said the working group felt that added punishment “did more harm than good.”

Daniels said the working group would try to have sentencing terms drafted before the committee’s next meeting on Nov. 2.

Reducing recidivism

Foley discussed a potential addition to Indiana Criminal Code Section 11-13 that would create a Probation Improvement Fund at the county level to be administered by the DOC. Using appropriations from the General Assembly, along with donations, gifts and money transferred from other funds or accounts, Foley said the fund would enable county probation departments to develop and use progressive sanctions for dealing with probation violations. It would also be designed to help departments address the needs of offenders with substance abuse and mental health problems.

“There are D felons that need to go to prison, and we should make that determination on the local level,” Foley said. “If the D felon should not go to prison for a commitment of at least one year, then that needs to be handled in the community.”

head-randy-mug.jpg Head

Sen. Randy Head, R-Logansport, said that based on his past experience as deputy prosecutor he saw the merit in Foley’s proposal.

“You’re absolutely right that sometimes D felons need to go to the department of correction,” he said. “The beauty of this is it gives each county the flexibility it needs to deal with different situations.”

Head said that when an offender is picked up for a probation violation, by the time he’s “processed” he gets credit for time served and ends up feeling like he’s gotten away with the undesirable behavior. Immediate sanctions – like a few days in a jail for a drug offender who tests positive for a controlled substance – would be much more effective in deterring repeat offenses, Head said.

At its Oct. 4 meeting, Randy Koester, deputy commissioner of the DOC, explained that the DOC reduced parole and probation revocations for technical violations, increased the number of counties with community corrections programs and requested prosecuting attorneys and criminal court judges in each county to consider other sanctions besides prison for persons sentenced for nonviolent crimes.

Foley said an important step in preventing recidivism is recognizing that offenders who remain in their communities may be able to benefit from supports and services in a more immediate fashion. While the DOC has several rehabilitative programs for offenders, the time it takes for inmates to be processed, sent to DOC facilities and participate in the programs may be longer than the inmate’s incarceration, which in turn leads to people being unable to complete the program.

Tim Brown, director of legislative services for the DOC, said that the DOC’s outpatient substance abuse treatment is completed in three phases and that offenders must be able to complete Phase 1 (two to four weeks), Phase 2 (an average of three months) and part of Phase 3. Literacy programs take an average of six months to complete, and GED diploma programs take about six to nine months to complete.

“We need at the very minimum eight to nine months to effectively get an offender into any type of programming at the DOC,” Brown said.

Foley’s proposal also called for a Substance Abuse Treatment Fund and a County Offender Fund which would be used at the local level to defray the costs of housing an inmate, to support community corrections programs and to support problem-solving courts and work release programs.

“I have become convinced that we can do a better job of probation. Swift and certain sanctions are meaningful,” Foley said. He explained that the proposed changes are based on what has worked in other parts of the country.

Foley said it’s important to keep in mind that many of the people who are being picked up on probation violations are men with low-level drug offenses who have child support obligations and families that need their help. Keeping them connected to the community rather than in the DOC is better for society in general, he added.•


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. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.