Steven Clippinger v. State of Indiana
54 N.E.3d 986
Ind.2016Background
- In June 2012 Steven Clippinger (previously convicted of murder in 1990) shot and killed his brother Matthew and sister-in-law Lisa; he was arrested at the scene in possession of the firearms.
- After a bench trial Clippinger was convicted of two counts of murder and of being a serious violent felon in possession of a firearm.
- The trial court sentenced Clippinger to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment without parole and, after a separate hearing, a consecutive 20-year term for the firearm conviction.
- On direct appeal Clippinger challenged only sentencing: (1) statutory authority to impose consecutive life-without-parole sentences; (2) adequacy of the sentencing order under the court’s capital-sentencing requirements; and (3) propriety of an additional sentencing hearing after imposition of life without parole.
- The Supreme Court remanded for a revised sentencing order consistent with Lewis v. State; the trial court issued a Revised Order but again imposed the same consecutive sentences.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the 20-year firearm sentence, held Section 35-50-1-2(c) permits consecutive life-without-parole terms, found the Revised Order deficient on content but, after appellate reweighing, sustained the consecutive life-without-parole sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Clippinger) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a sentence of life imprisonment without parole is a "term of imprisonment" under Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(c) permitting consecutive sentences | "Term of imprisonment" includes life without parole; statutory language (e.g., § 35-50-2-9(g)) labels life-without-parole a "term" and parole statutes show legislature contemplates life terms | Life without parole is functionally like death: indefinite, no contemplated release, so it is not a "term of imprisonment" authorized for consecutive imposition under § 2(c) | Affirmed: life without parole is a "term of imprisonment" for § 2(c); consecutive life-without-parole sentences are statutorily permitted |
| Adequacy of the sentencing order under capital-sentencing precedents (Harrison/Pittman/Lewis) | The revised sentencing order satisfied statutory headings; the two statutory aggravators supported the sentence | The original/revised order was legally insufficient because it did not properly identify, state facts for, and balance statutory aggravators and mitigators as required | Held that the Revised Order remained substantively inadequate; Court reweighed the properly proven aggravators and mitigators on appeal and concluded the aggravators outweighed mitigation, affirming consecutive life sentences |
| Whether conducting a further sentencing hearing after imposing life without parole was improper | Additional hearing was permissible to clarify sentencing | Argued the additional hearing was improper after sentence already imposed | Moot: remand and Revised Order resolved this contention (no relief warranted) |
Key Cases Cited
- Isom v. State, 31 N.E.3d 469 (Ind. 2015) (discusses differences between death and other punishments and limits on consecutive death sentences)
- Lewis v. State, 34 N.E.3d 240 (Ind. 2015) (sets minimum requirements for sentencing orders imposing life without parole)
- Harrison v. State, 644 N.E.2d 1243 (Ind. 1995) (framework for findings in capital sentencing)
- Pittman v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1246 (Ind. 2008) (further articulation of capital-sentencing findings requirements)
- Pope v. State, 737 N.E.2d 374 (Ind. 2000) (equates procedural standards for life without parole and death penalty)
- Price v. State, 715 N.E.2d 331 (Ind. 1999) (addresses limits on treating non-term penalties as "terms of imprisonment")