Danny Boling v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 28
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Boling was convicted after a jury trial of attempted child molesting (Class A) and child molesting (Class C).
- The trial court imposed 45 years for attempted child molesting, plus 6 years for child molesting, to run concurrently.
- The court found Boling to be a credit restricted felon under Indiana law.
- Boling appeals on sufficiency of evidence, credit-restricted status, and sentence appropriateness.
- The appellate court affirms the conviction and main sentence, but reverses the credit-restricted designation and remands for record correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for attempted child molesting | State argues evidence supports knowledge and substantial step | Boling argues lack of proof of knowing substantial step | Sufficient evidence supports the conviction |
| Credit restricted felon determination for attempt | State says statute intended to apply to attempts; exclusion would be absurd | Boling argues statute excludes attempts; cannot be credit restricted | Boling is not a credit restricted felon for attempted child molesting; remand for record correction |
| Sentence appropriateness | State contends 45 years is appropriate given offense and Boling's role | Boling argues sentence is excessive in light of offense and character | Sentence not inappropriate; affirmed in part, remanded for credit status correction |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaspar v. State, 833 N.E.2d 1036 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (definition of deviate sexual conduct; finger as object)
- Haggenjos v. State, 441 N.E.2d 430 (Ind. 1982) (authorization to apply murder law to attempted murder limited by statute context)
- Camden v. Gibson Circuit Court, 640 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. 1994) (distinguishes between completed offenses and attempts; legislative intent)
- Strong v. State, 903 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (limits on Haggenjos application to other statutes)
- Cline v. State, 971 N.E.2d 1240 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (statutory interpretation; rules of construction for penal statutes)
- Bei Bei Shuai v. State, 966 N.E.2d 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (statutory interpretation; intent and policy guidelines for penalties)
- Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (consideration of criminal history in sentence impact)
- Louallen v. State, 778 N.E.2d 794 (Ind. 2002) (mens rea in child molesting cases; knowledge standard)
- Noble v. State, 725 N.E.2d 842 (Ind. 2000) (knowledge standard for culpability in child molesting)