Kyle Pavan v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 415
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2007 Kyle Pavan was charged with Class C felony incest for consensual intercourse with his 34‑year‑old biological aunt occurring between Nov. 1, 2006 and Jan. 31, 2007; he pled guilty and received a six‑year sentence (two years executed, remainder suspended).
- Pavan filed a pro se petition for post‑conviction relief in 2014 asserting trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue the prosecution was time‑barred under the statute of limitations.
- Pavan’s theory: Indiana Code § 35‑41‑4‑2(e) bars prosecution for listed sex offenses unless commenced before the victim turns 31, and because his aunt was 34 when charged the prosecution was barred.
- The State argued § 35‑41‑4‑2(e) was inapplicable and the general five‑year limitations period for Class C felonies governed; parties agreed the facts were undisputed and the issue was statutory interpretation.
- The post‑conviction court held the five‑year limitations period applied, the prosecution was timely, and counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a meritless statute‑of‑limitations defense; Pavan appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pavan) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a statute‑of‑limitations defense | § 35‑41‑4‑2(e) requires prosecutions for listed offenses to be commenced before the alleged victim turns 31; because the aunt was 34, prosecution was barred | § 35‑41‑4‑2(e) is a tolling/extension provision for certain sex offenses and does not shorten or decriminalize incest; the general five‑year limitations for Class C felonies applies | Counsel not ineffective because the statute‑of‑limitations argument is meritless and prosecution was timely under the five‑year rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. 2013) (burden and standard of proof in post‑conviction proceedings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Kubsch v. State, 934 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. 2010) (definition of reasonable probability in prejudice prong)
- Sloan v. State, 947 N.E.2d 917 (Ind. 2011) (noting legislature provided extended statute of limitations for certain sex offenses)
- Wallace v. State, 753 N.E.2d 568 (Ind. 2001) (applicable statute of limitations is that in effect when prosecution was initiated)