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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT