Thomas K. Jackson, Appellant-Defendant, –v– State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
Supreme Court Case No. 20S-CR-315
Indiana Supreme Court
Decided: May 19, 2020
Appeal from the LaPorte Superior Court, No. 46D01-1704-F3-367
The Honorable Michael S. Bergerson, Judge
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 19A-CR-796
Per Curiam Opinion
Chief Justice Rush and Justice David, Justice Massa, and Justice Goff concur.
Justice Slaughter dissents, believing transfer should
Per curiam.
Thomas K. Jackson admitted to having sexual intercourse with K.S. on three occasions when she was between 21 and 23 years old, but insisted the sex was consensual. The issues at trial were whether K.S., who is “moderately intellectually handicap[ped],” could, and did, legally consent to sex with Jackson.
After the first trial on these charges ended in a mistrial when the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict, in December 2018 a second jury convicted Jackson of three counts of Level 3 felony rape.1 During the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor acknowledged that Jackson, then 52 years old, had led a law-abiding life and recommended that the court impose the advisory sentence of nine years for each of the three counts. The prosecutor also did not object to a split sentence with part of that time served on probation. The trial court instead sentenced Jackson to enhanced consecutive sentences of 12 years on each count, for an executed sentence of 36 years. Jackson‘s earliest possible release date is December 3, 2045, when he will be 79 years old.
In a divided decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed Jackson‘s convictions and sentence. Jackson v. State, No. 19A-CR-796, 2019 WL 7342368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Judge Brown dissented as to the sentence, writing that an enhanced prison term for a low-risk offender with no criminal history such as Jackson “does not reflect the goals of reformation or rehabilitation.” Id. at *10.
Jackson petitioned for transfer, which we now grant, vacating the Court of Appeals decision.
The Indiana Constitution authorizes independent appellate review and revision of a trial court‘s sentencing decision. See
During the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor and trial court identified two mitigating factors: Jackson‘s lack of criminal history and his low risk to reoffend as identified in the Presentence Investigation Report. Aggravators included Jackson‘s violation of a position of trust and his lack of remorse—though the trial court conceded that the latter was “consistent with [Jackson‘s] claim of a consensual relationship.”
Whether a sentence should be deemed inappropriate “turns on our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). Pursuant to our authority under
Accordingly, we revise Jackson‘s sentence to 27 years, with seven of those years suspended to probation. We summarily affirm the remainder of the Court of Appeals opinion,
Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, and Goff, JJ., concur.
Slaughter, J., dissents, believing transfer should be denied.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Elizabeth A. Flynn
Braje, Nelson & Janes, LLP
Michigan City, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Josiah J. Swinney
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
