Jerry W. Young v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 260
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2012 Jerry W. Young forced entry into A.B.’s apartment, then raped her and compelled her to perform oral sex. He was intoxicated during the incident.
- In April 2015 the State charged Young with Class A felony rape, Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, and Class D felony intimidation, and alleged he was a repeat sexual offender and a habitual criminal.
- A jury convicted Young on the charged counts; he admitted the repeat sexual offender and habitual offender allegations.
- At sentencing the court merged the rape and criminal deviate conduct convictions, sentenced Young to 50 years for rape (3 years for intimidation to run concurrently), then enhanced the rape sentence by 30 years (habitual offender) and an additional 10 years (repeat sexual offender), producing an aggregate 90-year sentence.
- On appeal Young challenged the double enhancement of the rape conviction; the State conceded error on that point but argued the proper remedy was reducing one conviction to a lesser-included offense and reallocating enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Young's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court may apply both a general habitual-offender enhancement and the repeat-sexual-offender enhancement to the same conviction | Trial court erred by applying both to rape; one enhancement should not be stacked on the same conviction | Error to apply two enhancements to the rape conviction | Court agreed—cannot stack the specialized repeat-sexual-offender enhancement and the general habitual enhancement on the same conviction; reversal/remand required |
| Whether merger of the rape and criminal deviate conduct convictions cured the double jeopardy problem | Merger was improper remedy; court should have reduced one conviction to a lesser-included offense (Class B CDC) to avoid double jeopardy and preserve both convictions for separate enhancements | (Young did not respond to this State argument) | Court agreed with State: remedy is to enter judgment for Class B felony criminal deviate conduct (lesser-included), not simple merger |
| Whether the repeat-sexual-offender and habitual enhancements may be run consecutively across convictions | Enhancements may be applied to separate convictions but must run concurrently (no statutory authorization to stack consecutive habitual-type enhancements) | (Young did not respond) | Court held enhancements should be applied to separate convictions (habitual to rape; repeat-sexual to CDC) but run concurrently; cannot order consecutive habitual-type enhancements |
| Sentencing effect on aggregate term after remedy | Apply habitual enhancement to rape (unchanged 50 + 30) and attach repeat-sexual enhancement to CDC to run concurrent; total aggregate reduced accordingly | (Young attacked original double enhancement) | On remand court to enter Class B CDC conviction and impose its enhancement concurrent to rape; aggregate sentence adjusted to 80 years per court instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Dye v. State, 972 N.E.2d 853 (Ind. 2012) (a specialized habitual-offender statute cannot be further enhanced under the general habitual-offender statute without explicit legislative direction)
- Ramon v. State, 888 N.E.2d 244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (double jeopardy principles require merger or other remedy when two convictions are elevated by the same bodily injury or same threat)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (when convictions violate double jeopardy, a reviewing court may reduce one conviction to a lesser form to eliminate the violation)
- Kovats v. State, 982 N.E.2d 409 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (remedy for double jeopardy can include vacating a judgment and entering conviction for a lesser-included offense)
- Breaston v. State, 907 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. 2009) (trial court cannot order consecutive habitual offender sentences absent express statutory authorization)
- Starks v. State, 523 N.E.2d 735 (Ind. 1988) (same principle limiting stacking of habitual offender enhancements)