Title: Louis Richard Harris v. State of Indiana

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
David W. Stone IV 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Steve Carter 
Anderson, Indiana  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney General of Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nicole M. Schuster 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court 
_________________________________ 
 
No. 48S02-0812-CR-637 
 
LOUIS RICHARD HARRIS, JR., 
 
Appellant (Defendant below), 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF INDIANA, 
 
Appellee (Plaintiff below). 
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court, No. 48C01-0306-FA-192 
The Honorable Fredrick R. Spencer, Judge 
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 48A02-0606-CR-532 
_________________________________ 
 
December 11, 2008 
 
Sullivan, Justice. 
 
Defendant Louis Richard Harris, Jr., seeks our review and revision of his sentence 
imposed for two counts of child molesting.  The trial court ordered two consecutive sentences of 
50 years each, for a total executed sentence of 100 years.  We revise the sentences to be served 
concurrently.  
 
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
Dec 11 2008, 1:51 pm
 
2 
Background 
 
Richard Louis Harris, Jr., lived with a woman and her daughter, D.G., for approximately 
ten years.  Harris acted as a father to D.G., and she called him “Dad.”  In June of 2003, the 
family moved from Missouri to Anderson, Indiana.  One night shortly after moving, Harris 
roused 11-year-old D.G. from her sleep and led her outside to the family’s van.  There, Harris 
engaged D.G. in sexual intercourse.  Days later, on Father’s Day, Harris requested D.G. engage 
in sexual intercourse.  When D.G. initially refused, Harris told her it would be like a Father’s 
Day gift.  Again, Harris engaged D.G. in sexual intercourse.  On June 19, 2008, Detective Kevin 
Smith of the Anderson Police Department, responding to an inquiry about the welfare of D.G. 
from out of state, interviewed D.G.  During the interview D.G. revealed that Harris molested her.  
The State charged 32-year-old Harris with two counts of child molesting as Class A felonies.  
The jury found Harris guilty on each count.  The trial court found several aggravating 
circumstances and no mitigating circumstances.  
 
The trial court sentenced Harris to 50 years for each count of child molesting to be served 
consecutively for an aggregate sentence of 100 years.  Harris appealed his sentence and 
convictions.  In an unpublished memorandum decision, a majority panel of the Court of Appeals 
affirmed the trial court’s decision.  Louis Richard Harris, Jr. v. State, No. 48A02-0606-CR-532, 
slip. op., 881 N.E.2d 733 (Ind. Ct. App. February 27, 2008).  Judge Riley dissented.  Harris seeks 
transfer on, and we grant transfer to address, the sentencing issue only.1  
 
Discussion 
   
The General Assembly amended Indiana’s sentencing statutes in 2005.  Prior to the 
amendments, Indiana used “presumptive” sentences, standard sentences prescribed by the 
legislature for a given crime.  Francis v. State, 817 N.E.2d 235, 237 (Ind. 2004).    A presumptive 
sentence served as the starting point and allowed the sentencing court limited discretion to 
                                                   
1 In his brief to the Court of Appeals, Harris also contended that (1) the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of 
a police chase; and (2) he was deprived of a fair trial because of an improper closing argument.  The Court of 
Appeals resolved these issues adversely to Harris.  Harris, slip op. at 10, 16.  We summarily affirm the decision of 
the Court of Appeals as to these issues.  Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).   
 
 
3 
enhance a sentence to reflect aggravating circumstances or to reduce a sentence to reflect 
mitigating circumstances.  Id.   However, we held this scheme unconstitutional, Smylie v. State, 
823 N.E.2d 679, 685 (Ind. 2005), following Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).  In 
response, the General Assembly eliminated fixed presumptive terms in favor of “advisory” 
sentences for each offense; it declared that a court could impose any sentence within the 
statutory range set for the crime, “regardless of the presence or absence of aggravating 
circumstances or mitigating circumstances.”  Ind. Code § 35-38-1-7.1(d) (2005).  Under this 
scheme, when a trial court imposes a sentence, it must provide a statement including reasons or 
circumstances for imposing a particular sentence if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are 
found.  Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007).   
 
The sentencing statute in effect at the time a crime is committed governs the sentence for 
that crime.  Gutermuth v. State, 868 N.E.2d 427, 431 n.4 (Ind. 2007) (citing Smith v. State, 675 
N.E.2d 693, 695 (Ind. 1996)).  Harris committed his crimes before the legislature amended 
Indiana’s sentencing statute.  Consequently, the presumptive sentencing scheme applies.  Under 
this prior scheme, for Class A felony child molesting, the standard or “presumptive” sentence 
prescribed by the legislature was “thirty (30) years, with not more than twenty (20) years added 
for aggravating circumstances or not more than ten (10) years subtracted for mitigating 
circumstances.”  I.C. § 35-50-2-4 (2004).  In sentencing a defendant convicted on more than one 
count, judges had (and have) the authority to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences.  I.C. § 
35-50-1-2(c) (2004).  Before a trial court could impose a consecutive sentence, it must have “(1) 
identified all significant aggravating and mitigating circumstances; (2) set forth the specific facts 
and reasons that lead the court to find the existence of each such circumstance; and (3) 
demonstrated that the mitigating and aggravating circumstances have been evaluated and 
balanced in determining the sentence.”  Smith v. State, 889 N.E.2d 261, 262 (Ind. 2008) (citing 
Ortiz v. State, 766 N.E.2d 370, 377 (Ind. 2002)).   
 
At Harris’s sentencing hearing, the court identified three aggravating circumstances: (1) 
Harris abused his position of trust as the victim’s father-figure; (2) Harris committed multiple 
acts of sexual misconduct other than the crimes charged; and (3) Harris’s criminal history.  The 
court identified no mitigating factors.  The trial court found that the aggravating factors 
 
4 
outweighed the mitigating factors and sentenced Harris to 50 years for each count and ordered 
the sentences to run consecutively, for a total of 100 years.  But the trial court did not explain 
why the aggravating circumstances warranted consecutive sentences as opposed to enhanced 
concurrent sentences.  Thus, the trial court fell short of the requirement that it explain its reasons 
for selecting the sentence it imposed. See Lander v. State, 762 N.E.2d 1208, 1215 (Ind. 2002).  
 
The Indiana Constitution provides, “The Supreme Court shall have, in all appeals of 
criminal cases, the power to . . . review and revise the sentence imposed.”  Ind. Const. art. VII, § 
4.  Pursuant to this authority, we have provided by rule that “the Court may revise a sentence 
authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds that 
the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the 
offender.”  App. R. 7(B).  Rather than remand for a new sentencing order, we elect to exercise 
our authority to review and revise the sentence, as Harris has requested. 
    
Regarding the nature of the offense, under the prior scheme the presumptive sentence was 
the starting point the legislature selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.  
Ruiz v. State, 818 N.E.2d 927, 929 (Ind. 2004).   As previously indicated, the presumptive 
sentence for Class A felony child molesting was thirty (30) years.  But we have held that crimes 
against children are particularly contemptible.  Walker v. State, 747 N.E.2d 536, 538 (Ind. 2001).  
Harris argues the sentences on each count should be reduced because he is “far from being the 
worst type of offender.”  (Appellant’s Br.  at 11-12.)  He asserts there was no gratuitous brutality 
during the act of intercourse or evidence of threats to keep D.G. from telling anyone.  Generally, 
maximum sentences are appropriate for the worst offenders.  Reid v. State, 876 N.E.2d 1114, 
1116 (Ind. 2007).  “This is not, however, a guideline to determine whether a worse offender 
could be imagined.  Despite the nature of any particular offense and offender, it will always be 
possible to identify or hypothesize a significantly more despicable scenario.”  Buchanan v. State, 
767 N.E.2d 967, 973 (Ind. 2002). Furthermore, we have explicitly stated that the absence of 
physical harm to the victim is not an automatic mitigating circumstance barring an enhanced 
sentence.  Walker, 747 N.E.2d at 538.   
 
 
5 
Harris was in a position of trust with D.G.  D.G. believed Harris was her biological father 
and she called him “Dad.”  Moreover, the trial court found that Harris molested D.G. on multiple 
occasions other than the crimes charged.  D.G. testified that Harris engaged her in sexual 
intercourse about twice a week since she was eight years old.  We find the ongoing nature of 
Harris’s crimes coupled with his position of trust sufficiently aggravating to justify enhanced 
sentences.   
 
Considering the character of the offender, we observe as follows.  The two counts of 
child molestation were identical and involved the same child.   Id.  (finding the defendant’s 
consecutive sentence of eighty years for two counts of Class A felony child molesting manifestly 
unreasonable in part because the two counts were identical and involved the same child).  In 
addition, Harris’s criminal history consists of two Class D felonies involving theft and numerous 
traffic violations, some of which resulted in misdemeanor convictions.2  Harris asserts his prior 
offenses are “manifestly different in nature from child molesting and fairly minor compared to 
Class A Felonies.”  (Appellant’s Br. at 13.)  The significance of a defendant’s criminal history 
“varies based on the gravity, nature and number of prior offenses as they relate to the current 
offense.”  Ruiz, 818 N.E.2d at 929 (quoting Wooley v. State, 716 N.E.2d 919, 929 n.4 (Ind. 
1999)).  Here, nothing indicates the acts of child molestation involved driving or theft, and the 
current crimes are manifestly different in nature and gravity from the previous convictions.  
Though Harris’s criminal history is not inconsequential, we conclude his convictions are not 
significant aggravators in relation to a Class A felony.  See Harris, slip. op. at 20 (Riley, J., 
dissenting) (Harris’s criminal history and the weight of the aggravators insufficient to justify 
imposing consecutive sentences). 
  
Based on our review, we find aggravating circumstances sufficient to warrant imposing 
enhanced sentences for child molesting.  However, we do not find the aggravating circumstances 
sufficient to justify imposing consecutive sentences.  We revise Harris’s sentence to 50 years for 
each count of child molesting as Class A felonies and order the sentences be served concurrently.   
 
                                                   
2 The parties refer to a single prior felony conviction; however, the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report indicates two 
prior felony convictions, a Class D felony for receiving stolen auto parts, Cause Number 48E02-9203-CF-036, and a 
Class D felony theft, Cause Number 48E02-9902-DF-039. 
 
6 
 
Conclusion 
 
 
We summarily affirm the Court of Appeals with respect to Harris’s convictions.  App. R. 
58(A)(2).  We remand this case to the trial court with instructions to issue an amended 
sentencing order and to issue or make any other documents or docket entries necessary to impose 
a revised sentence consistent with this opinion, without a hearing.   
 
Shepard, C.J., and Dickson and Rucker, JJ., concur.   
 
Boehm, J., concurs in result without separate opinion.