Sec. 14. (a) As used in this section, "sex offense"
means a felony conviction under IC 35-42-4-1 through IC 35-42-4-9 or
under IC 35-46-1-3.
(b) The state may seek to have a person sentenced as a repeat sexual
offender for a sex offense described in subsection (a) by alleging, on a
page separate from the rest of the charging instrument, that the person
has accumulated one (1) prior unrelated felony conviction for a sex
offense described in subsection (a).
(c) After a person has been convicted and sentenced for a felony
described in subsection (a) after having been sentenced for a prior
unrelated sex offense described in subsection (a), the person has
accumulated one (1) prior unrelated felony sex offense conviction.
However, a conviction does not count for purposes of this subsection,
if:
(1) it has been set aside; or
(2) it is a conviction for which the person has been pardoned.
(d) If the person was convicted of the sex offense in a jury trial, the
jury shall reconvene to hear evidence in the enhancement hearing. If
the trial was to the court, or the judgment was entered on a guilty plea,
the court alone shall hear evidence in the enhancement hearing.
(e) A person is a repeat sexual offender if the jury (if the hearing is
by jury) or the court (if the hearing is to the court alone) finds that the
state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person had
accumulated one (1) prior unrelated felony sex offense conviction.
(f) The court may sentence a person found to be a repeat sexual
offender to an additional fixed term that is the advisory sentence for the
underlying offense. However, the additional sentence may not exceed
ten (10) years.
As added by P.L.214-1999, SEC.4. Amended by P.L.71-2005,
SEC.15; P.L.6-2006, SEC.9, P.L.140-2006, SEC.37, and P.L.173-2006,
SEC.37; P.L.125-2009, SEC.8; P.L.142-2020, SEC.86.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
32
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case:
Wright v. State, 881 N.E.2d 1018 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Wright v. State, 881 N.E.2d 1018 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 28× “ISSUE Wright raises two issues, one of which we find diapositive: Whether Wright's trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge the enhancement of Wright's sentence due to his status as a repeat sexual offender as defined by Ind. Code § 35-50-2-14 .…”
Pierce v. State, 949 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. 2011).
· cites it 8× “I respectfully disagree with my colleagues, as I would not disturb the ruling of the Court of Appeals.”
Golden v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 6× “Ind.Code § 35-50-2-14. For these reasons, Golden has failed to show that the trial court’s imposition of the advisory sentence and a ten-year enhancement on the repeat sexual offender count was error.”
Primmer v. State, 857 N.E.2d 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 6× “Ind.Code § 35-50-2-14; see also Ind.Code § 85-50-2-1.”
Barber v. State, 863 N.E.2d 1199 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “3 to remind Indiana’s trial courts of those statutory provisions that do require the “use” of an advisory sentence: (1) in imposing consecutive sentences in accordance with Indiana Code § 35-50-1-2; (2) in imposing an additional fixed term to an habitual offender under Indiana…”
Smith v. State, 825 N.E.2d 783 (Ind. 2005).
· cites it 6× “Under the terms of Indiana's Repeat Sexual Offender Statute, Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-14, to be discussed in detail infra, the trial court found Smith to be a repeat sexual offender based on two prior unrelated rape convictions.”
Robertson v. State, 871 N.E.2d 280 (Ind. 2007).
· cites it 2× “These are: (1) when imposing consecutive sentences for nonviolent felony convictions arising out of a single episode of criminal conduct in accordance with section 35-50-1-2, (2) when imposing an additional fixed term to an habitual offender under section 35-50-2-8, and (3) when…”
Gregory A. Rose v. State of Indiana, 36 N.E.3d 1055 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “” Ind.Code § 35-50-2-14® (2009). Thus, Róse faced a possible sentence of between twenty-six to sixty-eight years.”
Adcock v. State, 933 N.E.2d 21 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “Ind.Code § 35-50-2-14. 4 . The State alleged that Adcock committed the offenses in counts I-III between August 2001, and August 2002, counts IV-VI between September 21, 2002 and September 20, 2004, count VII between 1997 and September 20, 2002, Count VIII between August 2001 and…”
State v. Downey, 770 N.E.2d 794 (Ind. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Code § 9-30-10-4 ("habitual traffic violator") and Ind.Code § 35-50-2-14 (“repéat sexual offender").”
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-14(a): 1 case
Wright v. State, 881 N.E.2d 1018 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
“ISSUE Wright raises two issues, one of which we find diapositive: Whether Wright's trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge the enhancement of Wright's sentence due to his status as a repeat sexual offender as defined by Ind. Code § 35-50-2-14 .…”
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-14(b): 1 case
Adcock v. State, 933 N.E.2d 21 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
“Ind.Code § 35-50-2-14. 4 . The State alleged that Adcock committed the offenses in counts I-III between August 2001, and August 2002, counts IV-VI between September 21, 2002 and September 20, 2004, count VII between 1997 and September 20, 2002, Count VIII between August 2001 and…”
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-14(d): 1 case
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-14(e): 4 cases
Barber v. State, 863 N.E.2d 1199 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
“3 to remind Indiana’s trial courts of those statutory provisions that do require the “use” of an advisory sentence: (1) in imposing consecutive sentences in accordance with Indiana Code § 35-50-1-2; (2) in imposing an additional fixed term to an habitual offender under Indiana…”
Primmer v. State, 857 N.E.2d 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
“Ind.Code § 35-50-2-14; see also Ind.Code § 85-50-2-1.”
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-14(f): 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.