Although an offender was successful in asserting the trial court erred in merging his sentences and applying an enhancement, he failed to respond to the state’s arguments for remedy which provided just a 10-year reduction to his 90-year aggregate sentence.
Jerry Young was convicted of Class A felony rape, Class A felony criminal deviate conduct and Class D felony intimidation. He was also found to be a repeat sexual offender and a habitual criminal offender.
Elkhart Superior Judge Evan Roberts merged the convictions for rape and criminal deviate conduct to avoid double jeopardy. Then the court sentenced Young to an aggregate 90-year term.
Young appealed and the state agreed the trial court erred by enhancing his rape conviction twice.
However, the state argues to remedy the double jeopardy problem, the court should have reduced the criminal deviate conduct to a lesser-included offense rather than merging the two convictions.
Young did not file a response to the state’s remedy. Nor did he respond to the state’s argument that his rape conviction should have been enhanced under the habitual offender statute and his criminal deviate conduct conviction should have been enhanced under the repeat sexual offender statute.
The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed there was error in merging Young’s convictions and applying two enhancements to a single conviction. Also, it followed the state’s suggestion for attaching the enhancements.
The appellate panel remanded with the order to enter judgment of conviction for Class B felony criminal deviate conduct. Young’s sentence – 50 years for rape and 30 years for the habitual offender enhancement – remains unchanged. However, the Court of Appeals ordered his repeat sexual offender enhancement to be attached to his criminal deviate conduct conviction, with both sentences running concurrent to the rape conviction for an aggregate sentence of 80 years.
The case is Jerry W. Young v. State of Indiana, 20A04-1512-CR-2142.