Pence approves mandatory minimums for drug dealing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Gov. Mike Pence toughened sentences for drug dealers Monday, signing legislation that would mandate repeat offenders serve at least 10 years if their crime involves methamphetamine or heroin.

The measure, House Enrolled Act 1235, was included in a bill-signing ceremony the governor held this morning at Hope Academy in Indianapolis, a high school for students recovering from drug and alcohol addiction.

“Drug abuse problems are not unique to our state, but I’m determined to meet this challenge head-on here in Indiana,” Pence said. “To start, I believe that any strategy to address drug abuse must start with enforcement. We need to make it clear that Indiana will not tolerate the actions of criminals, and I’m pleased to sign into law HEA 1235 to increase penalties on drug dealers.”

The other three bills Pence signed focused on treatment and were based on recommendations from the Governor’s Task Force on Drug Enforcement, Treatment and Prevention. All coming from the Senate, the measures were:

•    SEA 271, which repeals the Commission for a Drug Free Indiana and establishes the Indiana Commission to combat Drug Abuse;
•    SEA 187, which issues a statewide standing order for overdose intervention drugs, such as naloxone, and is expected to increase access to the medication; and
•    SEA 297, which requires Medicaid coverage for inpatient treatment of opioid or alcohol dependence.

HEA 1235 was authored by Rep. Greg Steuerward, the architect of the state’s criminal code reform that took effect July 1, 2014. The bill prohibits a judge from suspending the sentence if the offender has been convicted of a Level 2 controlled substance felony that involves meth or heroin and has a prior conviction for dealing. These felons will now have to serve a minimum of 10 years in state prison.

An analysis by the Legislative Services Agency noted the bill would not significantly increase the Department of Correction’s population. Of the 119 offenders sentenced to DOC as Level 2 felons since July 2014, only 14 had prior convictions for dealing in either cocaine, heroin or meth. And of those 14, four offenders received a sentence of less than the minimum of 10 years.

Still, the Indiana State Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Section and the Indiana Judicial Conference along with the Indiana Public Defender Council spoke out against HEA 1235. They argued the state should continue to emphasize treatment over incarceration and give judges the freedom to impose the sentences they believe are appropriate.

The bill also drew opposition from legislators. Although mostly Democrats voted against the measure, some Republicans, including Sens. Luke Kenley and Pete Miller and Reps. Robert Behning and Dave Wolkins, also cast no votes.

Still awaiting the governor’s signature is Steuerwald’s funding bill, HB 1102, which allows the DOC to make grants of up to $11 million total to county jails for mental health and addiction treatment. The money is coming from savings realized because the criminal code reform is lowering the state prison population by keeping lower-level offenders in the county jails where they can participate in treatment and rehabilitation programs.

Key provisions in the measure emphasize cooperation among the agencies and programs serving offenders. Under the bill, the DOC must coordinate with the Division of Mental Health and Addiction. Also, the counties that seek financial aid must have a plan of collaboration among the probation department and community corrections program along with other local criminal justice agencies such as the courts, prosecuting attorneys and public defenders.

The bill gained overwhelming bipartisan support with the lone no vote coming from Kenley.



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 have had an ongoing custody case for 6 yrs. I should have been the sole legal custodial parent but was a victim of a vindictive ex and the system biasedly supported him. He is an alcoholic and doesn't even have a license for two yrs now after his 2nd DUI. Fast frwd 6 yrs later my kids are suffering poor nutritional health, psychological issues, failing in school, have NO MD and the GAL could care less, DCS doesn't care. The child isn't getting his ADHD med he needs and will not succeed in life living this way. NO one will HELP our family.I tried for over 6 yrs. The judge called me an idiot for not knowing how to enter evidence and the last hearing was 8 mths ago. That in itself is unjust! The kids want to be with their Mother! They are being alienated from her and fed lies by their Father! I was hit in a car accident 3 yrs ago and am declared handicapped myself. Poor poor way to treat the indigent in Indiana!

  2. The Indiana DOE released the 2015-2016 school grades in Dec 2016 and my local elementary school is a "C" grade school. Look at the MCCSC boundary maps and how all of the most affluent neighborhoods have the best performance. It is no surprise that obtaining residency in the "A" school boundaries cost 1.5 to 3 times as much. As a parent I should have more options than my "C" school without needing to pay the premium to live in the affluent parts of town. If the charter were authorized by a non-religious school the plaintiffs would still be against it because it would still be taking per-pupil money from them. They are hiding behind the guise of religion as a basis for their argument when this is clearly all about money and nothing else.

  3. This is a horrible headline. The article is about challenging the ability of Grace College to serve as an authorizer. 7 Oaks is not a religiously affiliated school

  4. Congratulations to Judge Carmichael for making it to the final three! She is an outstanding Judge and the people of Indiana will benefit tremendously if/when she is chosen.

  5. The headline change to from "religious" to "religious-affiliated" is still inaccurate and terribly misleading.