By Liz Shepherd
InkFreeNews

Daniel S. Louvier

WARSAW — The State of Indiana has filed a brief with the Indiana Court of Appeals in response to Daniel Louvier’s appellant’s brief.

Louvier, 38, is appealing his 24-year prison sentence after he was convicted on two Level 4 felony charges for molesting two children.

During a one-day jury trial in October 2020, Louvier was found guilty on both charges. He was sentenced in Kosciusko Superior Court One on Nov. 9, 2020.

He is currently serving his sentence in the Indiana State Prison, with a projected release date of May 14, 2039.

According to court documents, on Dec. 9, 2019, a Child Protective Services caseworker contacted the Kosciusko County Sheriff’s Office. The caseworker said she had received complaints of molestation committed by Louvier that involved fondling two children.

A forensic interview was conducted by a DCS family case manager with one of the children on Dec. 9, 2019. During the interview, the child said Louvier touched them inappropriately multiple times over the past year. The child said the touching would happen when they were watching movies or television together. The child also said Louvier would pull them closer to him or pull them onto his lap and touch them inappropriately.

On Dec. 11, 2019, a forensic interview was conducted with the second child. The child said Louvier touched them inappropriately multiple times during the previous school year. The child said they would be sitting on the couch watching television when Louvier would pull them closer and inappropriately touch them.

In his appeal, Louvier and his counsel argued the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Louvier to the maximum sentence of 24 years and ignoring law that requires maximum sentences be reserved “for the worst of the worst.”

Indiana Deputy Attorney General J.T. Whitehead has filed the appellee’s brief on behalf of the state.

The 18-page brief, filed April 19, argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and the sentence is not inappropriate.

Whitehead delivers four points in his brief on how the court can abuse its discretion if the court: fails to provide a sentencing statement; relies on either aggravators or mitigators not supported in court records; fails to find any factors that are clearly supported by the record, or; relies on reasons that are invalid as matters of law.

“The decision to impose an aggregate 24 years for approximately 24 acts of molestation is not ‘clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances’ that were before this trial court,” states the brief.

The brief also argues the court did consider Louvier’s presented mitigators but decided to not give them any weight, stating that other factors outweighed mitigators.

“When compared with other factors considered by the trial court, they (presented mitigators) deserved no weight,” read the brief. “The defendant cannot now complain that the court was wrong to give these alleged mitigating factors no weight.”

Whitehead also says Louvier’s sentence is not inappropriate, stating the reason he is serving 24 years versus 12 is due to there being two victims, not one.

“Consecutive sentences reflect the significance of multiple victims,” read the brief.

The brief further elaborates on Louvier being “the worst of the worst” due to the victims’ ages, as well as their connections to Louvier and the number of times they were molested by him.

“To translate (Louvier’s) aggregate sentence into mathematical terms, he is serving approximately one year for each instance he molested one of the victims,” states the brief. “There is certainly nothing inappropriate about that.”

In a reply brief to the state, Louvier and his legal counsel, local attorney Travis Neff, argued that since mitigators were overlooked and aggravators that violated due process were considered, Louvier should be re-sentenced “to a sentence that is reasonable considering the evidence presented or remand the sentencing of this cause back to the trial court in this matter.”

As of April 27, Louvier’s appeal has been transmitted to the Indiana Court of Appeals and awaits the issuance of an opinion.