ILNews

The IBA's Criminal Justice and Appellate Sections File Amicus Brief on Sentencing Issue

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By James Bell and Casey Kannenberg, Bingham McHale
 

Bell James Bell

Sentencing hearings occur in the vast majority of Indiana’s criminal cases. For years, the tools trial judges have used to determine a reasonable sentence have included testimony, character letters, the defendant’s background and Indiana’s sentencing statutes. Recently, Indiana’s trial courts have begun utilizing “scoring models” to help determine a reasonable sentence. The practice of using such “scoring models” was recently challenged by a criminal defendant and his case reached the Supreme Court of Indiana.
 

Kannenberg Casey Kannenberg

Specifically, in Malenchik v. State of Indiana, No. 79S02-0908-CR-364 (Ind. 2010), the trial court, at sentencing, considered the results of a Level of Service Inventory-Revised (“LSI-R”) Report and the results of the defendant’s Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (“SASSI”). The defendant’s score on the LSI-R placed him in the “High Risk/Needs” category and the SASSI indicated that the defendant has a “high probability” of having a substance dependency. During the sentencing hearing, the judge referenced both the LSI-R and SASSI results, noting that “[Y]our LSIR score is high. Your SASSI score is high with a high probability of substance dependence disorder.” Id. at 3. After considering the Reports and other factors, the trial court ultimately sentenced the defendant to six years imprisonment, with two years suspended. Malenchik, No. 79S02-0908-CR-364, at 3, 4.

On appeal, the defendant challenged the trial court’s use of these scoring models. The State, on the other hand, argued that the Reports may be used in criminal sentencing “if employed consistently with [their] proper purposes and limitations.” Id. Eventually, these arguments reached the Supreme Court of Indiana.

However, prior to ruling on the issue, Chief Justice Shepard requested amicus briefs to aid the Court in reaching a conclusion. With the approval of the IBA Board of Directors, the IBA’s Criminal Justice and Appellate Sections drafted and filed an amicus curiae brief. Prior to the filing of the brief, members of these sections polled judges and criminal practitioners to determine the IBA’s position. Regardless of the position taken by the IBA, the views of all members were contained in the amicus brief and presented to the Court.

The Supreme Court of Indiana eventually arrived at a balanced result that upheld the use of “scoring models,” but limited their use. Specifically, the Court held that “legitimate offender assessment instruments do not replace but may inform a trial court’s sentencing determinations.” Malenchik, No. 79S02-0908-CR-364, at 2. The Court also concluded that “[t]hese evaluations and their scores are not intended to serve as aggravating or mitigating circumstances nor to determine the gross length of sentence, but a trial court may employ such results in formulating the manner in which a sentence is to be served.” Id. at 14.

The Criminal Justice and Appellate Sections would like to thank the judges and lawyers who shared their views and aided in the drafting of this amicus brief. In addition, both sections would like to give a special thanks to Professor Joel Schumm of the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis for taking his personal time to draft the amicus brief and for allowing the voices of the IBA’s members to be heard.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT