Possible improper use of risk assessment in sentencing not enough for remand

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man convicted of child molesting and incest will not get a chance to have his 99-year sentence reduced. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that even though the trial court may have abused its discretion, the sentence was not inappropriate.

In David Williams v. State of Indiana, 67A01-1302-CR-87, the Court of Appeals affirmed Williams’ conviction of eight counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class B felony incest. It also affirmed his sentence to an aggregate term of 99 years.

Williams argued that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing by not considering his lack of criminal history but, instead, finding his score on the Indiana Risk Assessment System to be an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeals noted that historically the absence of a criminal history has been viewed as a mitigating factor. However, in Kimbrough v. State, 979 N.E.2d 625 (Ind. 2012), the Indiana Supreme Court retreated from that position.

There, the Supreme Court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to consider as a significant mitigating factor that the defendant had no prior criminal history. The Court of Appeals interpreted that ruling to mean since a lack of criminal history is no longer significant, the trial court is not obligated to give weight to that fact.

On Williams’ contention about the IRAS score, the Court of Appeals noted while the trial court did not directly state it used the score as a aggravating element, it did draw attention to the score as indicating Williams is at high risk of reoffending.

An evidence-based offender assessment score should not be considered as either an aggravating or mitigating factor or used to determine the length of the sentence, the COA asserted. And, to the extent that the trial court may have relied on the IRAS score, that was improper.

However, the Court of Appeals ruled it does not have to remand for resentencing because it did not find the 99-year term to be inappropriate.   

“Although we have the power to review and revise sentences, the principal role of our review should be to attempt to level the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve what we perceive to be a ‘correct’ result in each case,” Judge Paul Mathias wrote for the court.


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. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.