ILNews

Man’s 100-year sentence for impregnating stepdaughter, dealing drugs upheld

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After pleading guilty to child molesting and dealing in hydrocodone, a Dearborn County man was unable to convince the Indiana Court of Appeals Thursday that his 100-year aggregate sentence should be reduced.

James E. Mefford was on probation for Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor when he delivered hydrocodone to another person and had sex with his 13-year-old mentally disabled stepdaughter. She became pregnant and later had an abortion. DNA tests on the fetus revealed Mefford was the father of the baby.

In two separate causes, he pleaded guilty to Class A felony child molesting and a habitual offender allegation, and to Class B felony dealing in a schedule II controlled substance. Sentencing was left open to the trial court, which sentenced him to the maximum of 50 years for child molesting, enhanced by 30 years, and the maximum of 20 years on the drug charge. The sentences are to be served consecutively.

In James E. Mefford v. State of Indiana, 15A04-1208-CR-394, Mefford argued that his sentence is inappropriate and he should have been ordered to serve the sentences concurrently.

In upholding his sentence, the appellate judges pointed out that Mefford told his stepdaughter to lie about who impregnated her and tried to arrange for an out-of-state abortion. He also claimed he was drunk and thought he was having sex with his wife. He also had an extensive criminal history, including sexual offenses, and he admitted to prolonged use of alcohol and drugs despite prior treatment.

They rejected his argument for concurrent sentences, finding that he committed two separate crimes on different days and was tried in separate causes.

 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT