Sophia Voravong has an article about the criminal appeal (pdf) of Jeffrey Akard (h/t Indiana Law Blog) that backfired on him. (As luck would have it, I had a brief and relatively inconsequential encounter with Mr. Akard, defending against a civil complaint he filed.)
The upshot is that, for the first time anyone can remember, the Court of Appeals used its discretion to increase a criminal defendant’s sentence on appeal. The Court of Appeals has maintained that it had the authority to revise a sentence up or down on review, but to date had only used that authority to revise it downward. It had noted that it would take an extraordinary case to revise a sentence the other way. Apparently Mr. Akard presented just such a case. They revised it upward from 93 years to 118 years. (And this will be served after he finishes a 14 year federal sentence for possession of child pornography.)
The facts of the case described in the Court of Appeals decision paints the picture of a sick s.o.b., involving abduction, rape, tasering, dressing his victim up to look like a child, and a number of other twisted elements.
Going forward, it will be interesting to see if it affects the eagerness of criminal defendants to appeal their sentences. In the past, there has been a sense that they have nothing to lose. Now, there might be at least an element of cautiousness about whether an appeal could actually increase their sentence.
Wow, you’re right- I can’t remember that outcome on an appeal. First thought is mixed. Seems like the right outcome for this guy. Agreed that it could cause those who really are guilty to think twice about automatically appealing, and that could help unclog and otherwise lighten the burden on the courts a wee bit.
Otoh, I have concerns for those who got the book thrown at them out of proportion, on ‘chilling effect’ grounds.
Whoa! I actually agree with Mike Kole. :)
I have to wonder about the increase in sentence here. Akard’s not going to get out of prison during his life anyway, which is what he richly deserves. What’s the point in the Court of Appeals adding a few years to his sentence? Has anyone accused the court of not being tough on crime lately? Are they telling criminal defense attorneys not to waste time appealing sentences for heinous crimes?
You forget that with health care reform we are all going to live forever…
[ducks…]
Down the road, he’ll file a PCR through another appointed attorney, claiming ineffective assistance by this counsel on this appeal, for failing to persuade him not to pursue this appeal.
Probably. Kind of tough to fault the attorney for not anticipating the Court of Appeals would do something they’d never actually done before.
@Two Cents and Doug: That would be dumb, but given Akard’s track record, not entirely outside the realm of possibility.
Rather than ask if it was appropriate for the appeals court to revise upward, I would ask if it was appropriate for him to not be given the maximum to begin with. I couldn’t think of one mitigating circumstance for this guy. It’s doubtful that he was legally drunk for the entire nineteen hour ordeal. Did he have a bad childhood or something? If not, then what exactly would the original court have required in order to give a harsher sentence? Six acts of forcible anal rape instead of five?
Perhaps Akard’s age was taken into consideration. He isn’t going to get out before the end of his life whether the state sentence is 93 years or 118 years. Plus he is still serving the federal sentence. Akard may have claimed some other (mildly) mitigating circumstance, although I agree, it’s hard to imagine what that could have been.
I’m more concerned about this case, not because of Akard getting a raw deal–who would argue that?–but because of the potential chilling effect it could have for people convicted of crimes who nevertheless have just cause to appeal their sentences. There are people who are wrongly convicted. There are people who are justly convicted, yet receive sentences that outweigh the severity of their crimes. Akard’s not remotely sympathetic, and there is no question that he did the crimes that he was convicted of. Tacking on a few years in his case seems justified in some way, if also a bit absurd. I’m not concerned for Akard. He can rot in prison. I am concerned for this direction in criminal jurisprudence, however.
I am the victim on this case
I suspect that it would be wise to present the proof of insurance at the BMV in person, and not trust in the mail or hope that someone will open the mail and treat it with the necessary respect. And maybe ask for a receipt of the document.