ILNews

Sole justice disagrees with sentencing transfer

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court has cut an Indianapolis child molester's prison sentence in half from 120 to 60 years, reanalyzing the penalty he received for being convicted of multiple counts of victimizing his stepdaughter.

But one of the state's top jurists objected to the court accepting this sentencing case, emphasizing that reviewing and revising this penalty goes against the high court's role as one of "last resort" and could lead to trial judges being less cautious and measured in sentencing.

A 4-1 ruling came down late Thursday in Michael D. Smith v. State of Indiana, No. 49S05-0806-CR-365. The case involves four merged counts of child molesting for which Smith was originally sentenced to 120 years following a jury trial. He'd been convicted of molesting his stepdaughter four times when she was between the ages of 10 and 14, and the trial court in 2005 sentenced him to serve consecutive sentences of 30 years for each count. The Court of Appeals affirmed that decision in an unpublished memorandum in August 2007.

But in granting transfer and reviewing the sentencing, a majority of justices determined the sentence should be reduced based on the character of the offender and nature of the offenses. Justices relied on Smith's extensive criminal history of two sex-based offenses that echoed the current offenses, as well as "multiple, serious aggravating circumstances" that include the long period of time he molested the girl and the "heinous violation of trust" that occurred. Justices directed one of the counts be imposed consecutive to the other, with the remaining two counts be served concurrently. It left to the trial court to decide which sentences be imposed consecutively and concurrently, and that can be done without a hearing.

In making its decision, the court relied on post-2005 caselaw stemming from Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and subsequent state law changes in Indiana's sentencing scheme, specifically moving to "advisory" rather than "presumptive" sentences.

Justice Brent Dickson dissented in a separate opinion, writing that he isn't convinced that this case isn't sufficiently "rare or exceptional" to warrant appellate intrusion into the trial court's sentencing decision. He noted the court's authority to review and revise criminal sentences is a permissive option, and the state constitution doesn't compel that review.

"Any greater frequency in appellate revision of criminal sentences may induce and foster reliance upon such review for ultimate sentencing evaluations and thus serve as a disincentive to the cautious and measured fashioning of sentences by trial judges," he wrote. "Restrained sentencing decisions are best made by a trial judge with the gravity that results from knowing that the judge's decisions are essentially final."
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. How do you go about each day with out having resentment or ill will towards the evil that has done this to you? Is it your faith that keeps you going and knowing that someday they will have to answer to God? At church our pastor talked about forgiveness and how Jesus forgave our sins and we should too. Its very hard knowing that we do the right thing in this world, and those that are liars, thieves, are continued in power and continue on doing their jobs, while you are banished from something that you have every right to do with out being penalized.

  2. From my post below .... I cut and pasted in error: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/human-trafficking-rising-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/42468

  3. Your prayers must account for some of the wind beneath my wings. That and this: His yoke is easy, His burden light. OK, now to bring this comment thread 100% back to the topic at hand. From my secret files, never before published, a letter that Commission head Myra Selby deemed interesting, but ..... This Hail Mary was ignored by the Commission, and then cited by the Indiana bar examiners to justify the need for a lifetime banishment from the Indiana Supreme Court. I tender it as a study in anti white male anti Christian antipathy in the Indiana court system. Focused upon the Race (ie not white) and Gender (ie not male) and not religious Commission for "fairness." Uncle Karl, eat your heart out: https://www.scribd.com/document/340472424/Race-gender-request-24128-1 ... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BznfHUztK5eTUGlxbmRvMWJsaHhLcGFuaE5KNHZWVjk3eHRn/view?usp=sharing

  4. What a disgrace of Judicial Proceedings. Can complain and write comments forever but someone needs to show the mother how to fight back before he turns this little girl against her.

  5. The truth comes out Issac Law Firm for Men helped Montgomery to get custody.Should read the lies he told them.How much was paid to the judges?

ADVERTISEMENT