David Williams v. State of Indiana
997 N.E.2d 1154
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- David Williams was convicted in Putnam Circuit Court of eight counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class B felony incest, sentenced to 99 years overall.
- K.W., Williams's daughter, was repeatedly molested over several years while in Williams's care during visitations with her mother A.B.
- Williams confessed to the molestations during a police interview after waiving rights under Miranda; suppression motion was denied.
- Williams argued the confession was coerced and improperly admitted; the State argued the confession was voluntary.
- Williams challenged the convictions as double jeopardy and challenged sentencing, including use of IRAS data and lack of criminal history as mitigating factors.
- The trial court merged some counts and imposed a composite sentence of 90 years executed and 9 years suspended; Williams appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Williams's confession admissible due to voluntariness? | Williams claims coercion rendered confession involuntary. | State argues rights were properly administered and confession voluntary. | Confession admitted; voluntary, not coerced. |
| Do incest and child molesting convictions violate double jeopardy due to evidentiary overlap? | Same evidence supported both convictions; violation under actual evidence test. | Multiple acts over years support separate offenses; no abuse of discretion. | Not a double jeopardy violation; separate acts justify convictions. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in sentencing Williams? | Trial court failed to properly weigh mitigating factors, including lack of criminal history. | Court properly weighed aggravators and mitigating factors within discretion. | No abuse; sentence within permissible range and not inappropriate. |
| Was the appellate review under Rule 7(B) properly applied given the nature of the offense and offender? | Sentence is disproportionate to the offense and offender characteristics. | Court should exercise deference; aggregate sentence is not inappropriate. | Sentence not inappropriate; no remand required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells v. State, 904 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (review of voluntariness of confession; abuse only for clear error)
- Atteberry v. State, 911 N.E.2d 601 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (totality of circumstances in voluntariness analysis)
- Giles v. State, 760 N.E.2d 248 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (vague promises to cooperate not necessarily coercive)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (actual evidence test for double jeopardy analysis)
- Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2002) (actual evidence test applied to multiple offenses)
- Lee v. State, 892 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind. 2008) (reasonable possibility standard for overlapping evidence)
- Garrett v. State, 992 N.E.2d 710 (Ind. 2013) (addressing double jeopardy in prolonged criminal episode)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (no duty to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors)
- Kimbrough v. State, 979 N.E.2d 625 (Ind. 2012) (remand not required when trial court weighs factors; lack of criminal history not always significant)
- Chappell v. State, 966 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (ability to revisit sentences when an abuse occurs)
- Mendoza v. State, 869 N.E.2d 546 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (standard for remand in sentencing after abuse)
- Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504 (Ind. 2007) (sentencing considerations for abuse of discretion)
- Powell v. State, 769 N.E.2d 1128 (Ind. 2002) (role of lack of criminal history as mitigating factor historically)